Tokyo Rope - CFCC in Prestressed Concrete Piles - Thesis - November 2013

The Florida State University
DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
November 2013
Investigation of Carbon Fiber Composite Cables

(CFCC) in Prestressed Concrete Piles
Kunal S. Joshi
The Florida State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Joshi, Kunal S., "Investigation of Carbon Fiber Composite Cables (CFCC) in Prestressed Concrete Piles" (2013). Electronic Theses,
Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 8578.
This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact
lib-ir@fsu.edu.
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
INVESTIGATION OF CARBON FIBER COMPOSITE CABLES (CFCC) IN PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE PILES
By
KUNAL JOSHI
A Thesis submitted to the

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2013
Copyright
c 2013 Kunal Joshi. All Rights Reserved.
Kunal Joshi defended this thesis on Novemeber 6, 2013.
The members of the supervisory committee were:
Michelle Rambo-Roddenberry
Professor Directing Thesis
Primus Mtenga
Committee Member
Sungmoon Jung
Committee Member
Lisa Spainhour
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies
that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my parents, Mr. Shamsundar Joshi and Mrs. Meghana Joshi, for their life-
time hardships and constant inspiration, without which I would have never achieved my academic
capabilities.
I would like to give my thanks to all my friends for pushing me to do my best. I would also
like to acknowledge the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering and all its professors for molding my
mind into what it is today. I would also like to thank Dr. Lisa Spainhour, Dr. Primus Mtenga and
Dr. Sungmoon Jung for being a part of my Masters committee. A special thanks goes to Mr. Sam
Fallaha, William Potter and all the people at the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Structures Research Lab for performing the tests, the trust shown in me, and funding this project.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Michelle RamboRoddenberry, my Major Professor, for providing
me with an opportunity to play a role in this research project and above all for the endless hours
of patience, support, and help. She truly made my Masters experience an incredible one. Thank
You.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Research Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Carbon Fiber Composite Cables (CFCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Transfer Length and Development Length Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Research Performed on Transfer & Development Length of CFRP Strands . . . . . . 11
2.6 Other CFCC Coupling Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7 Flexure Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 MATERIALS & INSTRUMENTATION 23

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Prestressing Strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Anchorage System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4 Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.5 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.1 Strain Gages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.2 Deflection Gages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.3 Embedded Data Collectors (EDC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 TEST SPECIMEN PRODUCTION 30

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2 Coupling at the FDOT Lab, Tallahassee, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3 Casting the Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3.1 Specimen Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3.2 Prestressing Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3.3 Bed Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3.4 Coupler Staggering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3.5 Setting the Anchoring Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3.6 Setting Wedges and Sleeve Toward CFCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3.7 Finishing the Coupler Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3.8 Stressing the Strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
iv
4.3.9 Installation of Spirals and EDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3.10 Concrete Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4 Stress Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 51
5.1 Transfer Length Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.2 Development Length and Flexural Test Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2.2 Test Matrix and Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.3 Instrumentation for the Development Length Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.2.4 Instrumentation for Flexural Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2.5 Test Procedure for Development Length and Flexural Tests . . . . . . . . . . 59
6 EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS 60

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2 Transfer Length Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2.2 Measured Strains at Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.3 Development Length Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.3.1 Test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.3.2 Test 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.4 Flexural Strength Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7 DISCUSSION 74
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.2 Transfer Length of CFCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7.3 Development Length Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.4 Flexural Strength Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.5 Learnings from Previous Prestressing at GATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 80

8.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.1.1 Transfer Length of CFCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.1.2 Development Length of CFCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.1.3 Flexural Strength of CFCCPrestressed Pile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.1.4 Specimen Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.1.5 Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
v
Appendix
A Moment Capacity Calculation 83
B Prestress Loss Calculation 84
C Concrete Mix Design 87
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Biographical Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
vi
LIST OF TABLES
4.1 Elongation measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1 Test matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.1 Transfer length for specimen pile ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.2 Theoretical vs test moment capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.1 Development length predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.2 Moment capacity comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Splash zone corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 FRP stress-strain relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 CFCC standard specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Applications of CFCC in various fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Load and elongation diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Variation of strand stress within the development length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Transfer length test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7 Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 Crack pattern observed by Zaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.9 Bridge Street Bridge plan view showing conventional span A next to CFRP span B . 16
2.10 Carbon fiber reinforced double-T beam cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.11 Deflections observed by Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.12 Pretensioning using steel couplers by Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.13 Load setup for decked bulb-T beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.14 Behaviour of CFCC in comparison with steel strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.15 HEM coupling method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.16 Flexure test used to evaluate development length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.17 Pile sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1 A typical stressing bed schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2 Open grip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Tokyo Rope coupling device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Construction of buffer material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.5 Typical volume percentage of constituents in SCC and traditional concrete . . . . . . 27
3.6 Strain gage schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
viii
3.7 Typical EDC set of instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1 Setup for coupling demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Section view of the pile specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Pile elevation view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4 Steel header replaced with wooden header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.5 Assembly to lay strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.6 Stressing bed schematic at Gate Precast Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.7 View from both ends for CFCC stagger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.8 Plan view from both ends for Coupler stagger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.9 Wrapping the buffer material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.10 Spraying molylube on the sleeves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.11 Installing sleeve and the braided grip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.12 Wedge setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.13 Wedge installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.14 Steel strand installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.15 CFCC coupled with steel strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.16 Coupler view after stagger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.17 Staggered couplers after inital pretensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.18 Stressing sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.19 Stressing profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.20 Installation of stirrups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.21 EDC clamped with a rubber material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.22 Casting using SCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.23 Curing aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.24 Strand cut pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.25 Different strand cut method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
ix
5.1 Strain gage layout on top of pile for transfer length test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2 Strain gage numbering for transfer length test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.3 Typical EDC layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.4 EDC installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.5 Test setups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.6 Loading setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.7 Gage layout for development length tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.8 Strand slip measurement device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.9 A pile being tested for development length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.10 Gage layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.11 Test setup for flexural test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.12 Angles used as concrete face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.1 Strain gage layout at prestressing end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2 Strain profile for pile 3 at release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3 Strain profile for pile end 3N at 75% stress release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.4 Strain profile for pile end 3N at 100% stress release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.5 Strain profile for pile end 3S at 75% stress release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
x
6.15 Load vs Deflection for test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.16 Failure crack pattern on East face for test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.17 Failure crack pattern on West face for test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.18 Load vs Strain for test 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.19 Load vs Deflection for test 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.20 Concrete crushing at top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.21 Failure crack pattern on East face for test 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.22 Failure crack pattern on West face for test 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.23 Load vs Deflection for flexure test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.24 Failure crack pattern on East face for flexural test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.25 Failure crack pattern on West face for flexural test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.26 Failure under one of the load points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.1 Stress pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.2 Mesh sheet installation technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.3 Wedge installation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
xi
ABSTRACT
The Florida Department of Transportation commonly uses prestressed concrete piles as founda-
tions in bridges.However, piles installed in aggressive marine environments are subject to corrosion
of the steel prestressing strands and therefore, rapid degradation. Although many solutions have
been applied to address this issue, these solutions are not long-term and hence the use of advanced
materials that do not corrode, is desirable.
Five 24in. square prestressed concrete piles, three 40ft long and two 100ft long, were cast
using 0.6in. diameter Carbon Fiber Composite Cables manufactured by Tokyo Rope Manufac-
turing Company to assess the performance of CFCC as prestressing. A different anchoring system
was used to anchor the CFCC to the pile casting bed abutment in order to prestress the strands.
Transfer length was monitored on each pile end and compared to the existing prediction equations
to evaluate the bond characteristics of the CFCC. In addition to that, development length tests and
flexural tests were performed on 40ft piles at the FDOT Marcus. H. Ansley structures Research
Laboratory to further judge the performance of the CFCC. The results of these tests show that the
performance of piles prestressed with CFCC is comparable to those prestressed with steel. Also
described herein is the technique used to prestress these strands and the unique aspects involved
in constructing and precasting the piles.
The two 100ft piles were cast, but they will be driven on a bridge construction site on a fu-
ture date. The purpose will be to monitor the behavior of the piles during driving operations.
They could also be monitored to assess their longterm performance.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
As part of a transportation system, bridges need to be designed efficiently and to be well built.
Durability, low maintenance, and safety of the structure are top priorities for any owner, such
as the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Failure of a bridge component can cause
the entire structure to fail, especially when failure occurs in the foundation. In Florida, many
bridge foundations are subjected to harsh, marine environments, which can result in expensive
maintenance issues and shortened bridge life. Replacement of piles is difficult, because of the
superstructure resting on them; outrigger piles can be placed instead, but they are still expensive
and unsightly. Alternatives to replacing the piles include protecting the pile with shielding or
wrapping the pile with anti-corrosive material, but these alternatives are also expensive and do not
provide a longterm solution. Current research is involved in testing the performance of advanced
materials to replace steel reinforcement and prestressing. These materials are, more specifically,
fiber reinforced plastics (FRP). One of the potential alternatives is carbon fiber composite cables,
as they have high resistance to corrosion. The material is relatively a new technology, and much
research is required so that the designers can gain confidence in this material as a substitute for
steel reinforcement or prestressing.
1.2 Problem Statement
Prestressed concrete piles are a common foundation type for Florida bridges, due to their
economy of design, fabrication, and installation. The piles are prestressed with high-strength,
prestressing steel strands and are fabricated under controlled conditions in a casting yard. However,
they are often exposed to salt water (aggressive) environments, which results in rapid degradation.
The major area of concern is near the water level, also called the splash zone (figure 1.1). In
this area, the concrete experiences periodic wet and dry spells. As a result of this, salt deposits
on the concrete surfaces, resulting in corrosion of the prestressed steel strands. This can cause
1
Figure 1.1: Splash zone corrosion
loss of concrete material surrounding the strand, resulting in corrosion and a loss of steel cross
sectional area. The bridge may no longer be usable, or may require major retrofitting to strengthen
the foundations, which can be very expensive. A potentially good alternative to prestressed steel
strands, especially for piles in aggressive environments, is Carbon Fiber Composite Cables (CFCC).
CFCC strands are highly resistant to corrosion and are reported by manufacturers to have higher
bond strength to concrete than steel strands. Hence, CFCC is a strong candidate as a substitute
for prestressed steel strand. The cost of CFCC is currently higher than steel strands; however, the
cost of prestressing strand materials is a relatively small percentage of a bridges overall cost. Also,
the higher initial cost of CFCC would likely offset the long-term benefit of lower maintenance costs
and prolonged bridge life. The use of CFCCs in marine environments seems to hold much promise.
1.3 Research Objectives
The goal of this study was to show the suitability of using CFCC strands in Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) projects where piles are needed. In order to achieve this goal the
following objectives were met:-
1. To investigate the flexural capacity of CFCC prestressed piles
2. To investigate the driveability of CFCC piles
3. To determine the transfer and development lengths of the CFCC strands
4. To determine prestressing losses
2
1.4 Research Purpose
In order for FDOT and bridge designers to use CFCC piles in lieu of conventionally-pre-stressed
concrete piles, some study and testing is needed, with regard to flexural strength, driveability, and
prestressing losses. For this research, such testing of CFCC piles will be performed, and if the results
show that CFCC strands are a suitable alternative to conventional steel strands, then FDOT and
bridge designers will benefit by having empirical evidence and therefore confidence in their CFCC
pile designs. Most importantly, the use of CFCC piles, due to their non-corrosive properties, would
require less maintenance than steel-strand piles and will result in bridges with longer lifespans.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Many studies, both analytical and experimental, have been reported on the behavior of bond
properties, flexural strength, driveability and prestressing losses of steel prestressing used in concrete
structures. This chapter will describe in general the properties of advanced materials recently
introduced to replace steel to overcome the major issue of corrosion. Advanced materials described
in this chapter are Fiber Reinforced Plastics (FRP), one of which is used in this study to prestress
five precast concrete piles. This chapter will end with the recent work that has been conducted to
test FRPs on the above-mentioned properties.
2.2 Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP)
Fiber Reinforced Plastic materials are being extensively used and have revolutionized the con-
struction industry for many years. They offer an alternative to steel as reinforcement for concrete
structures. FRPs are composite materials consisting of synthetic or organic highstrength fibers
that are impregnated in a resin material. They can be manufactured in the form of rods, grids, and
cables of various sizes and shapes. The fiber portion of these materials can be made of aramid, glass
fibers or carbon with each having different material properties. However, there are disadvantages
of using the fiber-reinforced polymer, which are:
1. High cost (5 to 15 times of steel)
2. Low modulus of elasticity (for aramid and glass FRP)
3. Low ultimate failure strain
4. High ratio of axialtolateral strength, causing concern for anchorages for FRP used as pre-
stressing
5. Long-term strength can be lower than the short-term strength for reinforcement due to creep
rupture phenomenon (for FRP Reinforcement)
4
6. Susceptibility of FRP to damage by ultra-violet radiation
7. Aramid fibers can deteriorate due to water absorption.
8. High transverse thermal expansion coefficient as compared to concrete
The comparison of Tensile properties of reinforcement made from Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
(CFRP), Aramid Fiber Reinforced Plastic (AFRP), and Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP)
are compared shown in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: FRP stress-strain relationships (Domenico, 1995)
2.3 Carbon Fiber Composite Cables (CFCC)
Carbon fibers can be produced from two materials, namely textiles. The most common textile
material is polyacrylonitrile based (PANbased). Another is a pitchbased material, which is a
byproduct of petroleum refining or coal coking. Carbon fibers have exceptionally high tensile
strengthtoweight ratios, with a strength ranging from 1970 to 3200 MPa (286 to 464 ksi) and a
tensile modulus ranging from 270 to 517 GPa (39160 ksi to 74984 ksi). These fibers also have a
low coefficient of linear expansion, on the order of 0.2x106 m/m/degree Celsius, and high fatigue
5
strength. However, disadvantages are their low impact resistance, high electrical conductivity, and
high cost. Commerciallyavailable CFRP prestressing tendons are available under the brand names
of Carbon Fiber Composite Cable (CFCC) by Tokyo Rope (Japan), Leadline by Mitsubishi Kasai
(Japan), Jitec by Cousin frre (France), and Bri-Ten by British Ropes (UK). Carbon Fiber Com-
posite Cables (CFCC) made in Japan by Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (Tokyo Rope)
use PANtype carbon fibers supplied by Toho Rayon. A roving prepreg process manufactuers in-
dividual wires where the epoxy resin is heat cured. The prepreg is twisted to create a fiber core
and then wrapped by synthetic yarns. The purpose of the yarn is to protect the fibers from ultra-
violet radiation and mechanical abrasion, and also to improve the bond properties of the wire to
concrete. Cables are then made from one, seven, 19, or 37 wires and are twisted to allow better
stress distribution through the cross section.
The CFCC, currently patented in ten countries in the world, is a reinforcing cable formed by
using carbon fibers and thermosetting resins. Tokyo Rope currently produces cables with diameters
from 5 to 40 mm in any length up to 600 meters. The tensile strength of a 12.5mmdiameter
CFCC is 2.69 kN/mm2 , and the tensile elastic modulus is 155 GPa (figure 2.2). The thermal
coefficient of expansion is approximately 0.62x106 /degrees Celsius which is about 1/20th that of
steel. The relaxation is about 3.5% after 30 years at 80% of the ultimate load; this is about 50%
less than that of steel. Also, from the technical data on CFCC provided by Tokyo Rope, pull-out
tests show that CFCC has bond strength to concrete of 6.67 MPa, which is more than twice that
of steel. It is light in weight and has very high corrosion resistance, as claimed by Tokyo Rope.
The stranded framing of the cable makes it easy to handle, as it can be coiled. These features of
CFCC make it applicable to various applications such as:
1. Reinforcement of structures in corrosive environments
2. Corrosionresistant ground anchors (figure 2.3a)
3. Reinforcement of non-magnetic structures
4. Cables where reduced sag from selfweight is desired
5. Applications that benefit from low linear expansion (figure 2.3b)
6. Structures and construction that benefit from lightweight materials
6
Figure 2.2: CFCC standard specification (Source: Tokyo Rope)
(a) CFCC application

(b) CFCC application
Figure 2.3: Applications of CFCC in various fields (Source: Tokyo Rope)
7
From figure 2.4, CFCC does not yield like steel before failing, but fails immediately once it reaches
the maximum capacity. Due to this property, the structure will not give any warnings before failure.
Figure 2.4: Load and elongation diagram (Source: Tokyo Rope CFCC manual)
2.4 Transfer Length and Development Length Background
The transfer length is defined as the length of the strand over which the prestressing force is
fully transferred to the concrete. In other words, it is the distance along the member in which the
effective prestressing force is developed. The transfer length of a prestressing strand is influenced
by the Hoyer effect. The Hoyer effect is caused by swelling of the strand in the transfer zone after
release as a result of Poissons ratio. During transfer, since the lateral deformation is resisted by
the surrounding concrete, the induced confining stresses normal to the tendon enhance the bond
strength at the interface.
The additional length required to develop the strand strength from the effective prestressing
stage to ultimate is called the flexural bond length. The sum of these two lengths is called the
development length. These lengths are explained by Cousins et al. (1990a) and shown in figure 2.5.
8
Figure 2.5: Variation of strand stress within the development length (Cousins et al.1990)
Different tests have been standardized to examine these aspects of prestressing in concrete, and
they include flexural bond tests and transfer length tests. The American Concrete Institute (ACI)
suggests that the transfer length of any FRP varies with the condition of the FRP, the stress in
the FRP, the strength and cover of the concrete, and the method used to transfer the FRP force to
the concrete. In general, a prestressing rod having a smooth surface will require a higher transfer
length than a rod with a rough, irregular surface. The transfer length also varies with the method
used to release the intial prestress. For example, a greater transfer length will be observed if the
release of tension is sudden rather than gradual, and higher intial prestress will require greater
transfer length. In general, the bond of FRP tendons is influenced by following parameters as given
by ACI:
1. Tensile strength (600 to 3000 MPa [87, 000 to 435, 000 psi])
2. Hoyer effect
3. Cross-sectional shape
4. Surface preparation (braided, deformed, smooth)
9
5. The method of force transfer
6. Concrete strength and cover
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials Load and Resistance
Factor Design (AASHTOLRFD) Bridge Design Specifications states that the transfer length for a
strand should not exceed 60 times its diameter, while the flexural design guidelines in Section 12.9
of ACI 318-11 recommend using equation 2.1 for estimating the transfer length.
1
Lt = fse db (2.1)
3
where
Lt = Transfer length in inches
fse = Effective stress in ksi
db = Diameter of the strand in inches
However, shear guidelines in ACI 31811 Section 11.3 states that the shear design of the ends
of prestressed members is based on a transfer length equal to 50 times the strand diameter. Even
though there are many factors affecting the transfer length, according to AASHTOLRFD and
(ACI), the transfer length is primarily governed by either one or two parameters.
Development length can also be defined as the total embedment length of the strand required
to reach a members full design capacity. According to ACI 318-11, development length may be
calculated using equation 2.2:
2
Ld = (fps fse )db (2.2)
3
where
Ld =Development length in inches
fps =Total prestress in ksi
In equation 2.2, the first part is the transfer length of the prestressing strand while the second part
is its flexural bond length.
10
2.5 Research Performed on Transfer & Development Length of
CFRP Strands
Mahmoud et al. (1999) tested 52 concrete beams which were pretensioned using three differ-
ent types of prestressing. The tests were performed to observe the behavior of the three materials
with respect to transfer and development length. The materials used were lead line bars, CFCC
strands and steel strands. The researchers tested the simplysupported beams in flexure by apply-
ing a onepoint load, and by varying the shear spans. The results showed that, the strand diameter
(a) Concrete strain profile along transfer length (b) Transfer length correlation for Leadline bars and
CFCC strands
Figure 2.6: Transfer length test results (Mahmoud et al. 1990)
db , the initial prestressing level fpi , and the concrete compressive strength at transfer fci directly
affect the transfer length of the CFRP prestressing strand. Equation 2.3 to predict transfer length
was proposed.
fpi db
Lt = (2.3)
t fci0 0.67
A regression analysis of the test data was performed and resulted in a value of 4.8 for the constant
t for CFCC. The researchers concluded that the characteristics of the CFRP cause reduction of
the transfer length in comparison with a 7-wire or equivalent number of steel strands (figure 2.6).
in particular, the modulus of elasticity for CFCC, which is about 70% lower than for steel strands
causes more friction between the strand and the concrete during prestress release. This friction
arises from the longitudinal strains and eventually the lateral strains that occur in the prestressing.
11
The researchers also studied the effects of confinement on the transfer length and on the flexural
bond length by testing six beams that were pretensioned with CFCC, had no shear reinforcement,
and provided a concrete cover of four times the strand diameter. They compared the results with
other beams reinforced with steel reinforcement, and the results showed that, although there were
no splitting cracks within the transfer zone, the transfer length of the CFCC increased by 17% while
the flexural bond length increased by 25% (Mahmoud et al., 1999). The concrete cover of four times
the strand diameter, without any shear reinforcement, clearly affects the bond characteristics of
the CFCC.
Research by Mahmoud and Rizkalla (1996) on 24 rectangular-shaped pretensioned concrete
beams was conducted to determine the transfer and development lengths of CFRP. Out of the 24
beams, 16 were reinforced with a single CFCC strand. The beams were tested in flexure under the
MTS (Mechanical Testing System) machine by applying a point load, at the designated embedment
length and at the mid span of the beam as illustrated in figure 2.7. From the test results, they
Figure 2.7: Experimental setup (Mahmoud et al., 1999)
proposed a development length equation for CFRP prestressing strands:
fpi db (fpu fpe )db

Ld = 0.67 + (2.4)
0
t fci f fci0 0.67
where
fpi = initial prestressing stress
fci = concrete strength during release
fpu = ultimate tensile strength of the CFCC
fpe = effective prestressing stress
It was observed that the beams with embedment length less than the development length failed
after flexure and shear cracking, due to slippage of the strand for one or both the ends of the beam.
12
Beams with sufficient embedment length failed due to strand rupture at the location of the load
point. The beams displayed extensive flexural cracking extending up to the compression zone at
the top surface (figure 2.8). They showed that the transfer length of CFCC strand was about 50%
of ACI prediction for equivalent steel strand for concrete strength of 35 MPa at transfer.
Figure 2.8: Crack pattern observed by Zaki (Mahmoud and Rizkalla 1996)
The test setup used by the researchers was used in our study to asses the development length
of CFCC via flexural tests. From their proposed model, it is evident that the transfer length is a
function of fci0 as the increase in concrete strength gives smaller transfer length due to the improved
bond characteristics.
Issa et al. (1993) performed transfer length testing on GFRP strands. The researchers used
6in. x 4in. specimens for two concentric 3/8in.diameter S-2 glass epoxy strands. The strands
were prestressed to 50% of their ultimate strength. The transfer length observed was 10 to 11 inches
or, in other words, 28 times the nominal diameter of the tendons. This shows that the transfer
length for FRP strands is much lower than for steel strands.
Taerwe et al. (1992) used transfer prisms to determine the transfer length of Aramid com-
posite prestressing bars embedded in concrete prisms. Arapree AFRP bars with a sand coating
were used in the program. The bars were 7.5 and 5.3 mm in diameter. The concrete strength used
for the specimen construction was varied between 71.6 and 81.5 MPa, and the strands were stressed
to 50% of the ultimate tensile capacity. The transfer lengths measured in these tests were 16 to 38
times the bar diameter, depending on the type of coating on the bars. The study shows that the
13
transfer length is affected by the finish on the prestressing strands.
Transfer prism is a test used to determine bond characteristics of reinforcements. This test can
be used to measure the transfer length only, and its utility to determine the flexural bond length is
questionable (Domenico,1995). In a typical transfer prism, specimens are made by prestressing the
tendons and casting concrete prisms of considerably small cross-sectional area, and they usually
have a square cross section and are long.
End Slip Method, also referred to as the draw-in-method, is another technique commonly
used to evaluate the transfer length of prestressing strands (Logan, 1997). This method is based
on relating the amount of slippage measured at the end of the strand upon the release of the
prestressing force. First, the strand draw-in d is calculated as follows:
d = s c (2.5)
where
s = The change in the strands length in the stress transfer zone due to prestress release
c = The elastic shortening of the concrete in the stress transfer zone due to prestress release
By integrating the strains of the strand and the concrete along the transfer length, s and c
can be calculated as follows:
Z
d = (s c )dx (2.6)
Lt
In equation 2.6, s is the change in the strand strain due to prestress release, and c is the
change in the concrete strain due to prestress release. If the change in the strand and concrete
strain is linear, Equation 2.6 can be expressed in the following, simpler form:
fsi
d = Lt (2.7)
Eps
In equation (2.7), fsi is the intital stress in the strand, Eps is the Elastic Modulus of the strand,
is the stress distribution constant, and Lt is the transfer length. Balazs (1993) reported a value of
14
2 for parameter in the case of constant stress distribution and a value of 3 in the case of linear
stress distribution. Typically, the stress distribution is assumed to be constant. Thus, the transfer
length as given by Andrawes et al. (2009) can be calculated as follows:
2Eps d
Lt = (2.8)
fsi
Domenico (1995) performed research on transfer length and bond characteristics of CFCC
strands by testing Tshaped concrete beams in flexure. The variables used were the diameter of
the CFCC tendons, concrete cover and strength, and prestressing level. Domenico found that the
measured transfer length was proportional to the diameter of the CFCC strands and the prestressing
level applied. The study found the transfer length of the CFCC strand in the range of 140 to 400
mm (5.5 to 15.7 in.) which is much lower than the transfer length determined by using the ACI and
AASHTO equations. He also proposed an equation for transfer length which is given by equation
2.9
fpe Ap
LT = q (2.9)
80 fci0
Grace (2003) designed and used CFRP as the primary reinforcing material in Bridge Street
Bridge. This bridge is the first in the USA to use CFRP. The span that uses the CFRP material
as reinforcement, spans the Rouge River in Southfield, Michigan. This span constructed as shown
in figure 2.9, with one side using conventional girders, and the other side using special carbon fiber
reinforced beams, to provide a sidebyside comparison. The CFRPreinforced bridge section con-
sists of four modified double-T girders, and the beams were designed by Lawrence Technological
University (LTU) and Hubbell, Roth and Clark, Inc.(HRC). The study included long-term moni-
toring to evaluate the performance of the CFRP reinforcement. Monitoring devices were installed
during the construction of the span. The cross section of the double-T beam is shown in figure 2.10.
Instead of steel, each web was reinforced with the following: ten rows of three 10mm bonded pre-
tensioned CFRP tendons; six rows of two 12.5mm non-prestressed CFCC strands; and one row
of three 12.5mm nonprestressed strands in each web. The external longitudinal and transverse
unbonded CFCC strands provide post-tensioning reinforcement. The longitudinal 40mm CFCC
strands are externally draped, and 60% of the final post-tensioning force was applied to the lon-
gitudinal strands before transporting the beam. Flexure testing was done on the beam before the
15
Figure 2.9: Bridge Street Bridge plan view showing conventional span A next to CFRP span B
(Grace, 2003)
bridge span was constructed. The researchers observed that all 60 pretensioning strands failed,
while the post-tensioning strands did not. At failure, the post-tensioned strands were within 60%
of their tensile capacity, and the ultimate load was 5.3 times the service load. The span was used
for longterm monitoring of pretension load, concrete strain in the cross section, girder camber and
deflection, external strand integrity, and strain of longitudinal external strands.
Grace (2007) presented the data obtained from monitoring the Bridge Street Bridge span
with CFRP reinforcement for a period of five years (April 2001-July 2006), where it was concluded
that the bridge spans were performing as expected. To monitor the temperature distribution in the
beams, thermistors were used in the embedded vibrating wire strain gages. In addition to the data
obtained from the monitoring devices, manuallycollected data were also plotted in the graphs for
ease of correlation between manuallyread and automated collected data. In figure 2.11, data plots
contain both manual and automated data. Significant fluctuations in the measured deflections have
been observed, including erratic behavior by some of the sensors. The average mid-span deflections
for Beams C and G, after allowing the flow of traffic, were observed to be about 23 and 14 mm
16
Figure 2.10: Carbon fiber reinforced double-T beam cross section (Grace 2003)
(0.98 and 0.55 in.), respectively. The researchers found that that the temperature has no signifi-
cant effect on the deflection of the beams. Furthermore, the study concluded that no discernible
deviations had occured beyond the variations due to seasonal temperature changes in the concrete
strain and forces in the post-tensioned strands over the five-year monitoring period. The succesful
implementation and the performance shown by the CFCC in the Bridge Street Bridge show that
CFCC is comparable to steel strands and holds a promising future as reinforcement in a bridge
superstructure. However, the performance of CFCC in a bridge substructure has yet to be assessed.
Three single decked bulb-T beams were constructed and tested to failure by Grace et al.
(2012). One beam, used as a control specimen, was prestressed and reinforced with steel strands.
The second and third beams were prestressed and reinforced with CFCC, and CFRP, respectively.
The performance of the beams reinforced with CFCC and CFRP was found to be comparable with
the performance of the control specimen. The prestressing force in the reinforcements was to a level
of approximately 43, 37, and 57% of the ultimate strength of steel, CFCC and CFRP respectively.
The stress level attributed to the CFCC and the CFRP strands was less than the maximum allowed
17
(a) Deflections for beam C (b) Defelctions for beam G
Figure 2.11: Deflections observed by Grace (Grace 2007)
by ACI440.4R, which is 65%. The beams were cast one day after the prestressing was complete.
A special mechanical device, explained in section 3.3, was used to facilitate the stressing of the
CFCC strands without damaging the ends of the strand. A hydraulic pump was used to tension
the strands (figure 2.12). The anchorage or coupling system provided with the CFCC strands was
(b) Steel Couplers
(a) Applying pretension to longitudinal strands
Figure 2.12: Pretensioning using steel couplers by Grace et al. (2012)
tested for creep under joint research between Lawrence Technological University (LTU) and Tokyo
Rope. The release took place 14 days after concrete casting, and the release of the prestressing
forces in the CFCC beam was performed by further pulling the strand above the prestressing force
18
and then untying the mechanical device. The CFCC beam was designed to fail in compression by
concrete crushing. The load was applied with a hydraulic actuator (figure 2.13) and a two-point
Figure 2.13: Load setup for decked bulb-T beams (Grace et al. 2012)
loading frame. The performance of the beam was monitored through recording the deflection at
the mid span, strain readings in concrete and reinforcement, crack propagation, crack width, and
crack pattern. The performance of the CFCC prestressed beams was found to be comparable with
that of steel, as shown in figure 2.14. Grace concluded that the flexural load carrying capacity
(a) Load-Deflection curves of steel @ mid-span (b) Load-Deflection curves of CFCC @ mid-span
Figure 2.14: Behaviour of CFCC in comparison with steel strands (Grace et al. 2012)
and the corresponding deflection of the CFCC beam were 107 and 94% of those of the steel beam,
respectively.
Although the research suggests that the performance of the CFCC strands was comparable
to steel strands, the prestessing level was below the recommended ACI prestress level (65% of
19
Guaranteed ultimate tensile strength (GUTS)). In the new study presented herein; the CFCC was
prestressed to 65% of GUTS.
2.6 Other CFCC Coupling Method
Rohleder et al. (2005) introduced the use of CFCC strands as cables as an emergency
replacement for the Waldo Hancock Bridge. The new bridge used an innovative cradle system
to carry the stays from the bridge deck through the pylon and back to the bridge deck. CFRP
strands were installed for assessing performance in a service condition and for evaluation of possible
use on future bridges. As CFRP strands are low in shear strength and subject to brittle fracture
when using biting wedges, in this project the carbon strands were bonded in a threaded socket
using highly expansive grout (figure 2.15). The annular spacing in between the socket wall and
(a) Anchor sleeve with nut and strand
(b) Anchor sleeve with HEM
Figure 2.15: HEM coupling method (Rohleder 2005)
the strand was filled with a cementitiousbased, Highly Expansive material (HEM), which exhibits
a high degree of expansion during curing. The expansion of the material produces a confining
pressure of approximately (75.85 MPa) 11 ksi, locking the strand end and socket together.
Grace et al. (2003) showed that this confining pressure from the HEM is valuable for avoiding creep
concerns as might be found if an epoxy agent had been used to anchor the strand in the socket.
For the research presented herein, the method used by Grace et al. (2012) was followed to anchor
the CFCC strands, as it is also an anchoring method recommended by Tokyo Rope.
20
2.7 Flexure Test
The flexure test can be used to determine the development length in prestressed concrete mem-
bers. It can be a threepoint bending or a fourpoint bending test. The test is an iterative process
wherein it is often needed to evaluate the position of the applied load. The distance between the
applied load and the end of the beam can be varied to determine the development length. If the
beam fails due to failure of the bond between the strand and the concrete, this distance is increased,
and the test is repeated. Otherwise, if the beam fails in flexure, this distance is decreased. This
process is repeated until bond failure and flexure failure occur simultaneously. When this scenario
occurs, this distance is considered to be the development length. Figure 2.16 shows a general setup
of a threepoint bending test used by Andrawes et al. (2009). As shown in figure 2.16, if the beam
Figure 2.16: Flexure test used to evaluate development length (Andrawes et al. 2009)
fails in flexure, the load is moved to the left (direction i), and if the beam fails due to bond failure,
the load is moved to the right (direction ii).
Abalo et al. (2010) performed testing at the FDOT Marcus. H. Ansley Structures Research
Center to evaluate the use of CFRP mesh in place of spiral ties or conventional reinforcement spirals
for a 24in. square prestressed concrete pile. A control pile was cast along with the test pile for
comparison. The control pile was tested earlier to compare the actual capacity to the theoretical
capacity of the CFRP pile. Figure 2.17 shows the cross sections of the Control and CFRP piles.
As seen in figure 2.17, the control pile was also a 24inch square prestressed concrete pile; however,
it had 16 0.6in.diameter low-relaxation strands in a square pattern with W3.4 spiral ties. Both
piles were 40ft long. Strain gages were used to measure concrete strain on the top fiber towards
the center of the pile, and ten displacement gages were placed along the length of the pile. The
21
(b) CFRP pile
(a) Control pile
Figure 2.17: Pile sections (Abalo et al. 2010)
control and CFRP pile test setups were similar except for the number of strain gages used.
A single point load was applied to a spreader beam consisting of two steel I-beams whose reactions
provided the two point loads applied to the pile. The load was applied until failure, and the CFRP
pile experienced a compressive failure at the top. The ratio for actual vs the theorotical moment
capacity value for the CFRP pile was 1.27 as compared to 1.21 for the control pile.
From the research, a conclusion can be made that the performance of the pile using CFRP meshing
was higher than that of the control pile. A similar test setup was used in the study presented herein
to assess the flexural behavior of CFCC strands.
In summary, there has been a lot of research on the performance of CFRP strands in beams.
The purpose of the research presented herein was to investigate the performance of CFCC strands
in 24in. square piles, so as to evaluate the feasibility of replacing the steel in conventional piles
used in Florida Department of Transportation bridge construction.
22
CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS & INSTRUMENTATION
3.1 Introduction
This research involves the precasting manufacturing and testing of five CFCCprestressed con-
crete piles having a cross section of 24in. x 24in., with three piles being 40ft. long and two piles
being 100ft. long. This chapter describes the characteristics and properties of the materials and
instruments used.
3.2 Prestressing Strands
In this study, CFCC, produced by Tokyo Rope, Japan, was used as prestressing in five. Strand
diameters of 12.5 mm (0.5 inch) and 15.2 mm (0.6 in.) were used for longitudinal prestressing, and a
CFCC wire with diameter 5.0 mm (0.2 inch) was used as transverse reinforcement. The strands had
an effective cross-sectional areas of 76.0 mm2 , 115.6 mm2 and 15.2 mm2 , respectively. The guaran-
teed ultimate tensile capcity of the strand, as reported by the manufacturer, is 184 kN and 270 kN
for 12.5mm and 15.2mmdiameter strands, respectively. The elastic modulus is 155 GPa, and
the ultimate tensile strain of the strands is 1.6%. Other characteristics of the CFCC are mentioned
in section 2.3. The CFCC is a composite of fiber and a fiber bond; the fiber used to provide bond
is usually epoxy, and care must be taken to protect them from damage, deformation, and deterio-
ration. Particular care must be taken to protect them from sudden shocks of heavy or hard objects.
The stress-strain relationship of CFCC strand is linear up to failure as reported by the manu-
facturer. At the Structural Engineering and Construction, Research and Development facility at
the University of Manitoba, Canada, a single static tension test was performed on a 15.2mm
diameter CFCC strand. This test resulted in an ultimate tensile stress of 1955 MPa, an ultimate
tensile strain of 1.27%, and an elastic modulus of 155.6 GPa. These values are higher than those
reported by the manufacturer with the exception of the ultimate strain which was approximately
20% less(Tokyo Rope CFCC Manual). Conventional 0.6in. diameter steel strands were to coupled
23
with the CFCC to facilitate stressing. The steel strands were sevenwire 270ksi lowrelaxation
strands each conforming to ASTM A416 specifications. The strands had a nominal crosssectional
area of 0.217in2 and modulus of elasticity of 28,500 ksi.
3.3 Anchorage System

Since CFCC is brittle and susceptible to abrasion, using the customary method of anchoring it
for prestressing operations was not possible. Figure 3.1 shows the conventional method of stressing
strands in a casting bed. The steel strand is held by chucks on both ends and is tensioned using
a jack. The strand is held by chucks on both ends. The chuck most commonlyused at the non-
stressing end of the bed is a Bayonet grip that comprises a barrel and a wedge. On the stressing
end of the bed, the most commonlyused grip is the Open grip (Figure 3.2). Where, the wedges
Figure 3.1: A typical stressing bed schematic (Access Science website)
are held together by an o- ring. Because the conventional method for anchoring the prestressing
could not be used to stress the CFCC, an anchoring device was used to couple the CFCC with the
steel strands.
Figure 3.2: Open grip (Source: CCL pretensioning systems website)
24
The steel strands were then gripped using the bayonet grips and the open grips at the non
stressing end and stressing end, respectively.
Figure 3.3: Tokyo Rope coupling device (Tokyo Rope CFCC handling manual)
The anchoring device was a stainless steel coupler that is produced by Tokyo Rope. The stainless
steel coupler consists of a stainless steel sleeve for the CFCC and an attached joint coupler in which
to anchor with the steel strand. Before Tokyo Rope manufactured this coupler, Mahmoud et al.
(1999) wrapped synthetic yarns around each strand because the CFCC is vulnerable to objects
gripping on it directly. Recently, Tokyo Rope introduced a steel mesh sheet (figure 3.4) and a
steel braid grip in order to provide friction between the CFCC and the stainless steel sleeve and
also to avoid direct contact of the wedges with the CFCC, thus avoiding mechanical abrasion. To
anchor the steel strand to the coupler, a chuck is used inside the coupler. Tokyo Rope currently
produces couplers for 0.6in.diameter strands. This newlydeveloped anchoring device was tested
for creep under joint research between Lawrence Technological University (LTU) and Tokyo Rope.
The installation procedure for the anchoring device is explained in chapter 4.
25
Figure 3.4: Construction of buffer material (Tokyo Rope Buffer Material Manual)
The mesh sheet comprises interlocked layers of stainless steel sheets and Polinet sheets. This
provides adequate buffer to the CFCC strands and resists the bite from the wedges during seating,
thus protecting the strand from getting damaged. In addition to the buffer material, the braided
grip provides a second layer of buffering while creating frictional forces against the wedges.
3.4 Concrete
Selfconsolidating concrete (SCC) was used for this research program.SCC is a highlyworkable
concrete that flows under its own weight through denselyreinforced or complex structural elements.
The benefits of using SCC include :
1. Improved constructability
2. A smooth finished surface
3. Eliminated need for mechanical vibration
4. Easily fills a complex shaped formwork
Andrawes (2009) researched the bond of SCC with steel strand, and he concluded that SCC does
not affect the transfer or the development length of the strands and is comparable to conventional
concrete. SCC is also comparable to conventional concrete in terms of its strength. To achieve
the high flowability and stability characteristics of SCC, fabricators use more fine aggregates in
conjuction with less or smaller coarse aggregates in the mix design. The aggregates used for the
mix design in this research were 67 Rock, Sand, STI Flyash, and Glenium 7700. The waterto
cement ratio was 0.34 and the unit weight was 142.3 lbs/ft3 . The concrete mix properties are in
26
the appendix C. The concrete was mixed at GATE precasting yard in Jacksonville, Florida.
For a concrete mix to be considered as self consolidating concrete, the Precast/Prestressed

Concrete Institute (PCI) suggests a minimum of three physical properties:
1. Flowability
2. Passing ability
3. Resistance to Segregation
Typical SCC mixes have higher paste volume, less coarse aggregate, and higher sand-to-coarse
aggregate ratios than conventional mixtures. Figure 3.5 compares the volume percentage of the
constituents used in SCC and those used in traditional concrete. Previous studies have demon-
Figure 3.5: Typical volume percentage of constituents in SCC and traditional concrete (Andrawes
2009)
strated that hardened SCC shares similar mechanical properties with conventional concrete in terms
of strength and modulus of elasticity (Persson 2001). With most of the mechanical properties sim-
ilar to conventional concrete, SCC has a greater concrete shrinkage as compared to conventional
concrete as SCC mixtures are designed to have higher paste content or fines.
27
3.5 Instrumentation
3.5.1 Strain Gages
This research involved conrete strain meaurement during transfer as well as during flexural
and development length tests. For this purpose, strain gages manufactured by KYOWA Mfg. Co.
were used (figure 3.6). The strain gage model used was the KYOWA KC60120A111 (L1M2R),
Figure 3.6: Strain gage schematic (Kyowa Strain Gage Manual)
where :
60 = The gage length of the strain gage in mm
120 = The resistance of the gage
L1M 2R = 2 Lead wires of length 1 m each
The two lead wires come connected to the strain gage from the supplier, for ease of connecting the
strain gages to the data acquisition system. Otherwise, the lead wires have to be soldered to the
gage, which is a time consuming process. This type of strain gage can be easily adhered to concrete
by using glue, and some intial preparation is required before application, which is explained in the
section 5.1. Chapter 5 provides details on the strain gage layout for each stage of testing and type
of the test performed.
3.5.2 Deflection Gages
Noncontact displacement gages were used for the flexural and development length tests on
the 40ft piles were provided by the Marcus. H. Ansley Structures Research Laboratory. The
displacement gages are easy to install and can project the laser in areas were contact displacement
gages cannot reach. Chapter 5 provides details on the displacement gage layout for each type of
test performed.
28
3.5.3 Embedded Data Collectors (EDC)
To monitor piles while driving, Embedded Data Collectors, shown in figure 3.7, were installed
in the two 100ftlong piles. Embedded Data Collectors (EDC), as the name suggests, are strain
transducers and accelerometers that are embedded in the concrete member. The EDC system was
developed based on a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funded project Estimating
Driven Pile Capacities during Construction (Herrera et al. 2008). Before EDC was developed,
Figure 3.7: Typical EDC set of instruments (Source: FDOT)
the practice of monitoring piles during driving was with a Pile Driving Analysis (PDA) system.
Because the PDA requires the user to assume a constant damping factor for static resistance
estimates in the field, and CAPWAP analyses do not produce unique solutions, it was necessarry
to seek an alternative method to calculate static resistance from dynamic load test results, and
hence, studies were conducted on EDC as a standard method to monitor piles during driving.
Longterm monitoring of the pile specimen is another advantage of using the EDC monitoring
system. For this study, EDC was provided by Applied Foundation Testing, based in Jacksonville,
Florida. The installation procedure is explained in chapter 4
29
CHAPTER 4
TEST SPECIMEN PRODUCTION
4.1 Introduction
This research involved manufacturing and testing of five CFCC prestressed concrete piles. This
chapter describes the casting setup and the different methods used to stress the strands, and
comparisons to conventional methods are made. Tokyo Ropes coupler installation procedure, as
well as stressing procedures and coupler arrangements similar to those used by Grace et al. (2012),
were used for this research. This was the first instance that this procedure was used by the FDOT,
and hence an intial session was conducted at the Marcus H. Ansley Structures Research Center,
in Tallahassee, Florida, to demonstrate the installation procedure for the coupling device. This
session also illustrated to the precaster, GATE Precast Company, techniques to tension a CFCC
strand. Later, in July 2013, the five pile specimens were precast at Gates precasting yard located
in Jacksonville, Florida.
4.2 Coupling at the FDOT Lab, Tallahassee, Florida
For the intial demonstration session, 4ft lengths of CFCC were stressed, using couplers sup-
plied by the CFCC manufacturer, Tokyo Rope. A prototype of the precasting bed was built by
FDOT so as to simulate the procedures that would be used during the actual pretensioning at
Gates precasting yard(Figure 4.1). Tokyo Rope demonstrated how to install a coupling device, by
installing a coupling device on the end of a CFCC strand. After a coupling device was installed on
each end, markings were made on both ends of the strand to record any slip in the strand. The
CFCC was tensioned to 3400 psi, or 27,030 lbs, using a monostrand jack. The stress was applied
gradually so that minimal slippage would occur. At 3400 psi it was observed that the wedges had
seated in the sleeve. When released from the jack, the stress was recorded as 2300 psi, 16,606 lbs.
The strand was removed, and the test was repeated on a diffierent strand, with similar results. It
should be noted that in the casting of the final specimens, elongations included seating of CFCC
and steel strands in the couplers.
30
Figure 4.1: Setup for coupling demonstration
4.3 Casting the Specimens
In July 2013, the research team from the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering joined with Tokyo
Rope at the Gate precasting yard. Tokyo Rope performed the installation of the couplers, and
Gate stressed the strands and five pile specimens.
4.3.1 Specimen Configuration
The piles were designed to have a final prestressing force that would result in a minimum of
1 ksi compression on the pile section. The prestressing strand pattern was designed based on
standard details for a 24inch squared pile with 20 0.6in.diameter (15.2mm) FDOTs strands
(Figure 4.2a). The spirals were 5.0mmdiameter (0.2inch) CFCC, shown in figure 4.2b. The
CFCC spirals had a breaking load of 38 kN, and a tensile modulus of 167 MPa. The number of
turns and pitches for the CFCC spirals were based on FDOT standards (figure 4.3). The spacing
for stirrups is designed to provide sufficient shear strength to avoid early failure and was was kept
constant in all the piles so as to provide the same level of confinement. 20 CFCC strands were used
in the section considering the precasters standard casting bed template.
31
(a) Section (b) Spirals
Figure 4.2: Section view of the pile specimens
Figure 4.3: Pile elevation view
4.3.2 Prestressing Losses
PCI Design Handbook 7th edition, Chapter 5, explains the prestressing loss calculations for a
prestressed concrete member in compression. This enables the designer to estimate the prestressing
losses rather than using a lumpsum value. It is believed that the equations provide fairly realistic
values for normal design conditions.
The total losses are due to elastic shortening (ES), creep of concrete (CR), shrinkage of concrete
(SH) and relaxation of the strands (RE), as expressed in equation 4.1.
T L = ES + CR + SH + RE (4.1)
Losses due to elastic shortening, in psi, are calculated as:
Kes Eps fcir

ES = (4.2)
Eci
32
where
Kes = 1.0 for pretensioned components
Eps = modulus of elasticity of prestressing strands psi
Eci = modulus of elasticity of concrete at the time prestress is applied, psi
fcir = net compressive stress in concrete at center of gravity of prestressing force immmediately
after the prestress has been applied to the concrete, psi
where
Pi Pi e 2 Mg e
fcir = Kcir ( + ) (4.3)
Ag Ig Ig
where
Kcir = 0.9 for pretensioned components
Pi = intial prestress force, lbs
e = eccentricity of center of gravity of tendons with respect to center of gravity of concrete at the
cross section considered, in.
Ag = area of gross concrete section at the cross section considered, in2 .
Ig = Moment of inertia of gross concrete section at the cross section considered, in4 .
Mg = bending moment due to dead weight of prestressed component and any other permanent
loads in place at the time of prestressing, in./lbs
Losses due to creep of concrete, in psi, are calculated as:
Eps
CR = Kcr ( (fcir fcds ) (4.4)
Ec
where:
Kcr = 2.0 normalweight concrete
fcds = stress in concrete at center of gravity of prestressing force due to all superimposed, perma-
nent dead loads that are applied to the member after it has been prestressed, psi
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete at 28 days, psi
where
33
Msd (e)
fcds = (4.5)
Ig
where
Msd = moment due to all superimposed, permanent dead load and sustained load applied after
prestressing, lb in.
Losses due to shrinkage of concrete, in psi, are calculated as:
0.06V
SH = (8.2 106 )Ksh Eps (1 )(100 RH) (4.6)
S
where
Ksh = 1.0 for pretensioned components
V
S = Volume-to-surface ratio
RH = average ambient relative humidity
Losses due to relaxation of strands, in psi, are calculated as:
RE = [Kre J(SH + CR + ES)]C (4.7)
where
Values of Kre and J are taken from Table 5.7.1 in PCI Design Handbook 7th edition (PCI).
Values of coefficient C are taken from PCI Table 5.7.2.
The equations above were used to calculate the prestress losses for the five pile specimens. A
total prestress loss of 9.2% was calculated. (See Appendix B).
4.3.3 Bed Considerations
According to the ACI specifications for CFRP strands, the CFCCs can be stressed to a maximum
of 65 percent of the GUTS (270 kN or 60.69 kips). Gates casting bed was designed to hold a
compressive force of 684 kips, which is less than the compressive force that would be exerted if all
20 strands were stressed to 65% of GUTS. One of the options considered to address this issue was
to stress all the strands to less than 65%. The option chosen, however, was to stress the four corner
34
strands to 5 kips (8.2% of GUTS), which would keep the total compressive force under the capacity
of the stressing bed.This would allow the remaining 16 strands to be stressed to the maximum
allowed, in order to better asses the performance of CFCC at ACIs recommneded stress level.
Hence, the bed was subjected to a total compressive force of 651.2 kips, with the jacking force of
16 strands equal to 39.45 kips (65% of GUTS) and the jacking force for the corner strands equal
to 5 kips (8.2% of GUTS).
The CFCC strands are not as strong as steel strands in shear, approximately half that of steel,
and are susceptible to damage against hard edge objects in abrasion. To avoid any damage to
(b) Wooden Header

(a) Conventional Steel Header
Figure 4.4: Steel header replaced with wooden header
the CFCCs, Gates conventional steel headers were replaced by wooden headers that were built of
plywood at the casting yard (figure 4.4b). The wooden headers had a thickness of 0.5 inches and
were placed at every pileend location. Additional headers were at each end (the stressing end and
nonstressing end) of the bed, in order to cast 5ftlong concrete blocks, to secure the strands after
stressing as an additional measure of safety. Twenty holes of 0.7in. diameter were drilled in the
headers to accomodate the CFCCs.
The CFCCs were delivered to GATE in spools, and Gate used typical procedures to pull the
strands from the spool and install them in the casting bed (figure 4.5). 5mmdiameter CFCC
spirals were placed in each pile, to be in the final position once the prestressing operations were
35
Figure 4.5: Assembly to lay strands
complete. As seen in figure 4.5, the CFCC was pulled from the spool and cut after being pulled
through the headers. The CFCC was cut long enough for total pile length and the additional
length of the concrete blocks, so that the couplers could be between the block and the end of the
prestressing bed.
The scehmatic of the prestressing bed is shown in figure 4.6. The prestressing bed was a self-
Figure 4.6: Stressing bed schematic at Gate Precast Company
stressing form, with a total length of 440 feet. The distance between the concrete block at stressing
end and Pile 0 10 was 1 foot and similarly the distance between the concrete block at the non
stressing end was 1 foot. The endtoend distance between adjacent pile specimens was 1 foot, to
provide enough room to cut the CFCCs. Because of the coupling devices that were used, additional
length of CFCC strands was considered, which is explained in the next section.
36
4.3.4 Coupler Staggering
(b) Non-Stressing End View

(a) Stressing End View
Figure 4.7: View from both ends for CFCC stagger
The Figure 4.8 shows the plan view at each end of the prestressing bed. Before the couplers
were installed, it was necessary to consider the elongation of the CFCC strands and seating losses
in the coupler as explained in section 4.2. To calculate the basic elongation of the CFCC strands
due to the intial prestressing force, the equation 4.8 was used.
PL
= (4.8)
AE
where:
P = The prestressing force applied, kips
L = The length of the CFCC strand, ft
A = The crosssectional area of the CFCC strand, in2
E = The modulus of elasticity of the strand, ksi
In addition to the basic elongation, an abutment rotation of 0.25in., anchor sets of 0.125in. and
0.375in. for the dead end and live end, respectively, along with seating losses in the coupler for the
steel and CFCC wedges, were taken into account. The seating in the coupler was observed during
the initial stressing and was approximately 1.875 in.
Taking into account the elongation, the couplers were installed in a staggered pattern, to avoid
any coupler interaction during tensioning. The couplers were staggered at 3ft. increments. The
37
strands were stressed starting with the closest coupler to the stressing jack extending 8 ft from the
end of the pile. Figure 4.8 shows the stagger pattern at the stressing and nonstressing ends.
(b) Non-Stressing End View
(a) Stressing End View
Figure 4.8: Plan view from both ends for Coupler stagger
The total length of each CFCC strand was 360 ft, considering the prestressing bed setup (in-
cluding the concrete blocks and header placement) and the additional length to avoid any coupler
interaction. The couplers were installed by Tokyo Rope. The installation of the couplers is ex-
plained in the following section.
4.3.5 Setting the Anchoring Device

1. Wrapping the Buffer Material
The buffer material explained in chapter 3 was wrapped over the end of the CFCC strand
to be anchored. The wrapping was spiraled over the strand, carefully following the CFCCs
direction of twist, so that during tensioning, the strand and the buffer material would act
homogenously, (see figure 4.9).
38
Figure 4.9: Wrapping the buffer material
Source:Tokyo Rope CFCC handling manual
According to Tokyo Rope specifications, the buffer material should extend up to 160 mm
from the end of the CFCC to be anchored so as to provide enough area for the wedges to
seat.
2. Spray Molybdenum
Figure 4.10: Spraying molylube on the sleeves
Source:Tokyo Rope CFCC handling manual
The sleevewas lubricated with Molybdenum spray (figure 4.10) to reduce the friction between
the wedges and the sleeve during wedge seating. Although the amount of Molybdenum to
be sprayed on the sleeve was specified by Tokyo Rope, the sleeves were sprayed until the
inside surface was fully covered. The Molybdenum spray is an airdrying, solid film lubricant
featuring Molybdenum Disulfide and a binder, so it adheres to many surfaces and does not
easily rub off. It forms a thin, dry but slippery film of solid lubricants and performs under
extremely heavy loads, up to 10,000 psi. The Molybdenum spray for this research was sup-
plied by Tokyo Rope.
39
3. Insert the sleeve and install the braided grip
After spraying the sleeve with the Molybdenum lubricant and letting it dry (usually less than
Figure 4.11: Installing sleeve and the braided grip
a minute), the CFCC strand (which is wrapped with the mesh sheet) was inserted into the
sleeve. The mesh sheet buffer material was then covered with the braided grip (figure 4.11).
The braided grip was first compressed manually, such that the diameter of grip increased for
the ease of sliding it over the mesh sheet. Once the braided grip enveloped the mesh sheet,
the braided grip was drawn tightly towards the end of CFCC in order to eliminate the excess
diameter if any, such that the braided grip wrapped the mesh sheet without any wrinkles.
An electrical tape was fixed to both the ends of the braided grip and mesh sheet to protect
the installer from any sharp edges.
4. Check the installation

A check was performed to ensure that the wrapping of the buffer material followed the spec-
ifications provided by Tokyo Rope. which are :
Tapetotape length needs to be over 155 mm because the length of the wedge is 155
mm
Check if the braided grip has no wrinkles and is tightly wrapped
The spiral wrapping of the mesh sheet should not have any gap between the spirals
4.3.6 Setting Wedges and Sleeve Toward CFCC
Figure 4.12 shows the steps to set the wedges and sleeve for the CFCC. Once the checks for
(a) Step 1 (b) Step 2 (c) Step 3
Figure 4.12: Wedge setup
the buffer material were verified, the Molybdenum spray was applied on the outer surface of the
40
wedges until it was completely covered with a thin film of the lubricant, to provide ease of wedge
seating. The wedges were placed on the CFCC strand wrapped with the buffering material, such
that 60 mm of the strand end was extending beyond the larger diameter of the wedge. The wedges
were provided with an O ring so that they remained in place.
Check the wedge position. The wedge position should not:
1. Overlap with the electrical tape that is wrapped around the ends of the buffer material.
2. Have any gaps between them.
Inserting the wedges into the sleeve. A pneumatic jack provided by Tokyo Rope was used
in order to provide a consistent penetration of all four parts of the wedge into the sleeve, as shown in
figure 4.13. A 55mm mark was made on the wedge from the larger end of the wedge, and that is the
point to which the wedge was penetrated in to the sleeve. If the wedges are inconsistently installed
in the sleeve, there are chances of improper seating of the wedges, thus providing an uneven grip on
the CFCC strand. After the mark was made, the pnuematic jack (figure 4.13) was used to push the
Figure 4.13: Wedge installation
wedges into the sleeve. The pressure with which the wedges were pushed was about 20 MPa (3 ksi).
4.3.7 Finishing the Coupler Installation
The coupler installation was finished as follows:
1. Attaching the wedges and the coupler to the steel strand-

A standard open grip, shown in figure 3.2, was used to wedge the steel strand in the coupler.
The coupler is provided with a hole which allows the steel strand to be inserted in one end
(figure 4.14). After the steel strand was inserted in to the coupler, the open grip was installed
on it and was pulled back inside the coupler, so that anchoring of the steel strand is complete.
41
2. Joining the CFCC to the steel strand
The CFCC strand end with installed wedges and buffer materials was coupled to the end
steel strand end by twisting together the threaded ends of the sleeve and the coupler (figure
figure 4.14). The coupler was turned until it was taut and then drawn out by a thread, so
that there would be no damage to the coupler while tensioning. Figure 4.15 is a photo of the
completed installation of a coupler.
Figure 4.14: Steel strand installation
Figure 4.15: CFCC coupled with steel strand
Note that there should be no interaction between the CFCC and the steel strand within the
coupler.
After the coupler installation was complete, the slack in the CFCC strands that occurred while
laying the strands was removed by pulling the strands taut at the nonprestressing end. The steel
strands at the nonprestressing end were anchored by using the standard bayonet grips. Figure
4.16 shows the coupler arrangement after the couplers were installed. Location 0 a0 represents the
couplers extending 2 ft from the end of the pile, location 0 b0 represents the couplers extending 5 ft
42
Figure 4.16: Coupler view after stagger
from the end of the pile, and in location 0 c0 represents the couplers extending 8 ft from the end of
the pile.
Figure 4.17: Staggered couplers after inital pretensioning
4.3.8 Stressing the Strands
The prestressing force was applied using hydraulic monostrand jack, and the strands were locked
using open grips at the prestressing end so that the force would be maintained after jacking. After
the intial stressing was complete, the CFCC strands were checked for any slack, and the integrity
of the coupler device was checked. Markings were made on the CFCC strands at the edge of the
couplers to measure any slippage. Figure 4.17 illustrates the coupler stagger pattern after the
completion of intial stressing.
43
The expected elongation of the CFCC strands along with the steel strands was less than 50
inches. Hence, there was no need to cut any steel strands during the stressing operation, since
the hydraulic jack had a stroke capacity of 6 feet and did not need to be repositioned to complete
the stressing. The stressing pattern used was different than for conventional steel strand stressing.
Because the CFCC was coupled with the steel strand using a coupling device, Tokyo Rope advised
the precaster to stress each strand gradually. The suggested approximate time to stress one strand
to a force of 39.45 kips was 3 minutes. This allows the wedges in the coupler to seat without causing
any slippage of the strands.
Figure 4.18: Stressing sequence
All the strands were stressed to a force of 5 kips during the initial prestressing, and the corner
strands were not stressed more thereafter. The remaining 16 strands were stressed in the sequence
shown in the figure 4.18. The stressing force was recorded by Gate after completion of each strand
stressing. During the stressing process, after each strand tensioning was complete, elongation of
strands was recorded by measuring a mark on the strand to the end of the jack. The elongations
measured 46 34 in. to 50 in., and thus the performance of the CFCC strands was as expected.
Figure 4.19 shows the force in each strand after completion of final stressing, and table 4.1 shows
the elongation results for each strand.
44
(b) Strand Numbers
(a) Stressing Profile
Figure 4.19: Stressing profile
Table 4.1: Elongation measurements
Strand No. Force in Strand(lbs) Calculated Elongation(in) Observed Elongation(in)

1 5000 NA NA
2 39460 47 41 50
3 39490 47 41 49 34
4 39460 47 41 48
5 39430 47 41 47 12
6 5000 NA NA
7 39460 47 41 47 34
8 39460 47 41 46 34
9 39460 47 41 47 14
10 39440 47 41 47 12
11 5000 NA NA
12 39450 47 41 47 14
13 39450 47 41 46 34
14 39450 47 41 47 14
15 39470 47 41 46 34
16 5000 NA NA
17 39460 47 41 48
18 39440 47 41 46 34
19 39470 47 41 47 14
20 39510 47 41 47 14
The elongation of strands 2, 3 and 4 was higher than the calculated elongation, likely because
of the initial excess slack in the strand due to the weight of the coupler. After completion of
stressing, selfconsolidating concrete was used to cast the concrete blocks between the pile ends
and casting bed ends. The self-consolidating concrete was mixed at Gate and was supplemented
with an accelerating agent, so that the concrete blocks would cure faster.
45
4.3.9 Installation of Spirals and EDC
The spirals, which were placed near their respective locations in the pile before the stressing
operation began, were tied in their final position to the CFCC strands with zip ties. The spirals
at the locations where Embedded Data Collectors (EDC) were to be installed were left untied,
to provide enough space to install the EDC, after which the spirals were tied at those locations.
Lifting hooks were installed in accordance with FDOT standards.
Figure 4.20: Installation of stirrups
Source:ACI
Embedded Data Collectors were installed in the two 100ft piles, for the purpose of monitoring
the piles during driving. Applied Foundation Testing (AFT) provided and installed the Embedded
Data Collectors, as follows :
1. EDCs were installed at two pile diameters (48 in.) from the head of the pile and at one pile
diameter (24 in.) from the tip of the pile.
2. An additional EDC was installed at the center of the other two EDCs to monitor the strain
in the mid span during driving.
3. Cables were run through the piles for enabling the connection between the three sets of EDCs.
4. The cables were tied to the strands using zip ties, making sure that the cables would not be
subjected to any damage while placing concrete.
46
The instrument set located in the center was kept clear of the lifting hooks, at 48 in. and 51
in. from the pile head for pile no.1 and pile no.2, respectively (Refer to figure 4.6 for casting bed
layout). The spirals in the vicinity of the EDCs were tied to the CFCC strands after the EDC
installation was complete. Figure 4.21 shows the arrangement made to set the EDC to the CFCC
strands. The EDC was fixed using a rubber material to avoid the hard edge of the steel frame from
Figure 4.21: EDC clamped with a rubber material
interacting with the strands and to minimize any steel and carbon interaction. The entire setup
was checked for quality by Gate, before the concrete was placed.
The quality check list contained :
1. Checking the spacing of the spirals
2. Checking the length of each pile
3. Checking if the EDC instrumentation was operational
4.3.10 Concrete Placement
Typically used for piles, FDOT Class V (Special) concrete was not used for this research.
Instead, a selfconsolidating concrete mix was used, in order to avoid using a mechanical vibrator.
The CFCC strands are susceptible to abrasion and damage if a conventional mechanical vibrator
is used. As per Tokyo Ropes standards, a vibrator with a rubber tip can be used to compact the
concrete in a concrete product with CFCC. A mechanical vibrator with no rubber wrapping can
be used only in cases where the spacing between the CFCCs is larger than the diameter of the
47
vibrator head, so that there is no interaction between the vibrator head and the CFCC strands. To
avoid the potential of impacting the CFCC with the vibrator, selfconsolidating concrete was used
so that a vibrator would not be needed during placement operations (figure 4.22). The concrete
used was Class V [7500] with a measured 28day strength of 8640 psi.
Figure 4.22: Casting using SCC
The concrete was placed using four truckloads of concrete, and accelerants were added to the
concrete for faster curing. The surface of the concrete was levelled using wooden levellers to obtain
a smooth finish. Once the casting was complete, a plastic cover was placed over the bed to facilitate
a uniform curing temperature, as shown in figure 4.23. A total of seven 6in.diameter cylinders
were made, to test for concrete strength of concrete during strand release, flexure tests and driving
of the piles. The concrete was allowed to cure for 24 hours before the strain gages for transfer
length monitoring were installed.
4.4 Stress Release
24 hours after the concrete was placed, the cylinders were tested, and the two breaks resulted
in an average compressive strength of 5370 psi. The strands were then cut in a pattern shown in
figure 4.24.
A typical stressing pattern involves cutting the strands in a sequence that does not subject any
torsion on the pile section. That involves cutting the strands symmetrically about the axes of the
section. But in this study, although the design of the strand cut sequence was performed keeping
48
(a) Steel strand concave (b) Plastic Cover
Figure 4.23: Curing aid
(a) Prestressing End (b) Non-Prestressing End
Figure 4.24: Strand cut pattern
the structural integrity of the specimen, the strand cut pattern was governed by the position of
the installed couplers. Hence, the cut pattern was designed such that there would be no coupler
interaction during release of force, as the couplers would tend to drawn in towards the pile when the
strands were cut (Refer to figure 4.8 for the coupler stagger pattern). From figure 4.24a the corner
strands that were extended 2 ft from the end of the pile were cut first, and then the strands (marked
in black) which extending 5 ft from the end of the pile were cut, followed by the strands (marked
in white) which extended 8 ft from the end of the pile. Before the strands were cut, markings were
made at 2 in. from the header locations on the CFCC strands to measure any amount of strand
slip during stress realease. Figure 4.25 shows the tools used to cut the steel and CFCC strands,
49
respectively.
(b) Cutting the CFCC

(a) Torching the steel
Figure 4.25: Different strand cut method
The conventional method of using a torch was done to cut the steel strands. The CFCC strands
were then cut using a saw, as CFCCs are bonded with epoxy, and it is not recommended to torch
them. The distance in the headers between the end of the piles was only about 1 foot, but it is
recommended to increase this distance so that the operator cutting the strands will have a greater
space in which to lower the saw to cut the strands at the bottom of the specimen.
Embedded Data Collectors were used to monitor strains in the CFCC strands, during release, in
the two 100ft piles and similarly, electrical strain gages were used to monitor the strains in concrete,
during the stress release, in the three 40ft piles. The experimental program and instrumentation
setup is explained in the next chapter.
50
CHAPTER 5
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
5.1 Transfer Length Tests
To transfer the stresses from the prestressing strands to the concrete, the pretensioning tech-
nique relies on bond between the steel strands and the surrounding concrete. The length over which
the stress is transferred is inversely proportional to the bond strength. For prestressed concrete
members, it is necessary to predict the length required to transfer the stress and to develop the
strands its ultimate strength. This section describes the experimental program designed to mea-
sure the transfer length in this study. Monitoring the piles was done at Gate Precast Company,
while the piles were in their casting bed.
As mentioned in chapter 2, the transfer length is the distance from the end of the strand to the
point where the effective stress is developed. Monitoring the stresses towards the end of the pile
while cutting the prestressing strands is helpful to understand the bond behavior of the strands
with concrete, as the stress is gradually transferred to the surrounding concrete.
Three 40ft piles were equipped with electrical resistance strain gages on the top of the pile, so
that strains could be measured during stress release. The strain gages had an effective length of
60 mm (2.36 in.) and were installed on the ends of the piles and also at the mid span. The gages
on the pile ends provide data about the transfer of strains to the concrete pile section in the end
region.
On all the three pile specimens, the strain gage locations were kept similar, as shown in figure 5.1.
One end of the pile was instrumented with eight strain gages along the centerline of the pile, and the
other end had 18 strain gages installed approximately along the top corner strands. The strain gage
application was started after the concrete was allowed to cure for 24 hours. Strain gage application
was done as follows :
51
Figure 5.1: Strain gage layout on top of pile for transfer length test (Not to Scale)
1. The concrete at the strain gage locations was ground using a grinder equipped with a flapper
disc.
2. The ground surface was cleared of any dust by spraying the surface with acetone and wiping
it clean.
3. Centerline location markings were made on the smoothened surface.
4. Strain gages were applied using super glue (Zap gel).
5. The strain gage lead wires were secured by taping them to the concrete with duct tape.
The strain gages on each pile were connected to a channel which in turn was connected to the
Data acquisition center located at the center of the three 40ft piles. The data acquisition system
was provided by the FDOT. The strain gages were checked for any weak bond with the concrete
by checking for a violent jumps in the strain readings. Strain gages with irregular readings were
replaced with new gages. The strain gages were numbered as shown in figure 5.2, starting from
Figure 5.2: Strain gage numbering for transfer length test (Top View of Pile in Casting Bed)
the stressing end of the bed. For example, for strain gage number S101, S represents a strain gage,
and 101 represents the first strain gage located on pile 1. Similarly, the strain gages on the second
and third piles started with S201 and S301, respectively. After the installation was complete, the
52
strain gages monitored the strains throughout the stress release process. The results are discussed
in chapter 6.
Two 100ft piles were instrumented with embedded data collectors, and as shown in figure 5.3,
the data collector steel frames were placed at a distance of two pile diameters from the head of the
pile and one pile diameter from the bottom of the pile. Herrera et al. (2008) performed research on
EDC performance and compared them with PDA and CAPWAP on a database compiled by the
Figure 5.3: Typical EDC layout (FDOT)
FDOT. Herrera observed that the EDC provides results that are on an average within 15 percent
of PDA and CAPWAP estimated static resistance. EDCs theoretical ability to compute a new
damping factor for every hammer blow and provide revised estimates of static resistance in real
time will be a potential advancement in dynamic load testing. The strains were monitored through
a wireless receiver after the concrete was cast, and the EDC continued recording strain until the
release of prestress. EDC installation and data monitoring was done by Applied Foundation Testing,
Inc. The results from the embedded data collector monitoring are discussed in chapter 6. EDCs
will also be used to monitor the two 100ft piles during driving, as pasrt of a future test program.
5.2 Development Length and Flexural Test Program

5.2.1 Background
The development length is the length at which the failure mode changes from bond slippage
failure to rupture of the tendons. For this study, the shear span length was varied to determine
the development length of the CFCC strands. An additional test was performed to determine the
flexural capacity of the pile. This section explains the experimental setup, instrumentation layout,
and the test procedure used for development length and flexural tests.
53
Figure 5.4: EDC installation
5.2.2 Test Matrix and Setup
Two 40ft. piles were used for experimentation purpose at the FDOT Structures Research
Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida, after 45 days of curing. The third 40ft pile that was cast was
kept for possible future testing. They were placed in a test setup, similar to the one presented by
Gross and Burns (1995). The development length and flexural tests were performed in September
2013. The setup for each specimen consisted of a simplysupported span with a cantilevered end,
as shown in figure 5.5a. The piles were supported by two steel Ibeams. The Ibeams were levelled
and grouted to the concrete floor by using quick setting anchoring cement. Depending on the span
length of the simplysupported section of the pile, the supports were moved into position for each
test, and hence the supports were grouted two times for the three tests performed. The curing time
for the grout was about 4 hours. Elastomeric bearing pads were placed on the supports to rest the
pile on. The height of the support gave the piles a clearance of around 2 feet above the testing
floor. A point load was applied to the pile by an Enerpac actuator having a stroke of 8 inches.
As the predicted development length was less than 10 ft, the point load was applied close to the
support for the development length tests on the first pile. This load arrangement, along with the
cantilever length at the other end, preserved the other pile end for an additional test. Load was
measured with a load cell and was intially applied on the pile specimen at a rate of 250 lbs per
54
(a) Test setup for development length tests
(b) Test setup for flexural test
Figure 5.5: Test setups
second. An elastomeric pad was used under a steel loading plate with a groove that fit the tip of
the actuator, as seen in figure 5.6. Parameters that were varied for each test are as follows:
Figure 5.6: Loading setup
1. Length of the simplysupported span (S.S. Span)
2. Length of the cantilever overhang
3. Length of the shear span
55
4. Embedment length of the strand
Parameters for each test are summarized in table 5.1. For the development length tests, parameters
were chosen to ensure the structural integrity of the cantilever end of the beam, so that two
experiments could be performed on one pile specimen. In table 5.1, P622 Dev, for example
Table 5.1: Test matrix
Test No.l Pile No. S.S Span(f t) Shear Span(f t) Cantilever Embedment
Length(f t) Length(f t)
P-622 Dev 1 22 5 17 6
P-1027 Dev 1 27 9 9 10
P-38Flex 2 38 13.3 N.A. 14.3
indicates a pile specimen tested for development length of strands, having an embedment length of
6 feet and a cantilever length of 17 feet. Flex represents a pile tested for flexural strength.
5.2.3 Instrumentation for the Development Length Test
Instrumentation for each development length test was planned to monitor the following:
1. Applied load
2. Vertical deflections at several points
3. Concrete top fiber strains around the load point
4. Strand end slip
The instrumentation layout is shown in figure 5.7. Six deflection gages were mounted along the
length of the pile to monitor vertical deflections. The two deflection gages placed at the load
point location were averaged in the data analysis. Four electrical resistance strain gages were
installed to monitor the top fiber strains in the concrete around the load point. The properties
of the instrumentation is described in chapter 3. 2 deflection gages were installed at the support
location, as can be seen in figure 5.7. Strand end slip measurements were made during testing using
linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs). The devices were anchored with clamps to four
CFCCs in the bottom of the pile. Figure 5.8 shows the installed device. Strand slips, monitored
throughout the tests, reflected the displacement of the strand relative to the beam. The setup is
shown in figure 5.9
56
Figure 5.7: Gage layout for development length tests (Not to Scale)
Figure 5.8: Strand slip measurement device
Figure 5.9: A pile being tested for development length
5.2.4 Instrumentation for Flexural Test
The flexure test used instruments to measure the following:
1. Applied load
2. vertical deflections at several points
3. Concrete top fiber strains in the constantmoment region
4. Strand end slip
57
Fourteen strain gages and ten noncontact deflection gages were installed on the specimen, as seen
in figure 5.10. Two strain gages were located on the concrete surface under the actuator, to measure
Figure 5.10: Gage layout (Top View) (Not to Scale)
the top fiber compressive strain. Two other strain gages were placed at 8 inches from the center.
Angles were anchored to the side face, by drilling holes in the concrete and then the lasers from the
displacement gages were projected on to the angle face (figure 5.12) to measure the displacement.
In addition to these gages, four strand slip gages were installed to measure any strand slip during
flexure (figure 5.8). A single point load was transferred to a spreader beam, which was formed of
two steel I- beams. The spreader beam caused point loads to be applied to the pile and thereby
a constant moment region in approximately the middle third of the pile. The setup is shown in
figure 5.11. The weight of the spreader beam and its bearing plates was approximately 3000 lbs
Figure 5.11: Test setup for flexural test
or 3 kips.
58
Figure 5.12: Angles used as concrete face
5.2.5 Test Procedure for Development Length and Flexural Tests
For safety purposes, wooden logs were placed under the load point, where maximum deflection
was expected. Load was then applied at a rate of 250 pounds per second until the formation of the
first flexural cracks. After that, the rate was changed to 200 pounds per second.
The test continued until a bond or flexural failure occured. A substantial loss in the members load
capacity would be the result of a bond failure, which would be accompanied by strand slippage
of one or more strands. Flexure failure is evidenced by vertical cracks in the bottom of the pile
and extending upward as the load is increased. When failure was achieved, the pile was unloaded.
Crack propagations on the concrete surface were marked after the failure, and a detailed crack
pattern was then sketched. A similar procedure was followed for the second test on the first pile,
and again for the third test, varying the parameters given in table 5.1. The results from the tests
are discussed in chapter 6.
59
CHAPTER 6
EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS
6.1 Introduction
In addition to the strains that were measured while the CFCC strands were being detensioned
in the casting bed, laboratory experiments were performed to test the piles in flexure. The purpose
of this experimental program was to determine the transfer length and development length of the
CFCC strands and the flexural strength of the pile. This chapter reports the results that were
obtained from these tests. Not reported herein are the results of the pile driving tests on the two
100ft piles. These tests would be performed at a later date.
6.2 Transfer Length Measurements

6.2.1 General
The strength of the concrete at the time of stress release was 5370 psi and was obtained by testing
three cylinder specimens at Gate. As explained in section 5.1, three 40ft prestressed concrete piles
were monitored during release of prestressing. Both ends of each pile were instrumented with strain
gages and were designated as follows: 3N, 3S, 4N, 4S, 5N, 5S, where, the numbers 3 through 5
represent the pile number as per the bed layout shown in figure 4.6, and N represents the North
End, which was the stressing end of the bed, and S represents the South End, which was the
nonstressing end. The strain gage layout is shown in figure 5.1, and a photo of the strain gages
near the stressing end is in figure 6.1
6.2.2 Measured Strains at Transfer
Figure 6.2 shows the strain profile along the length of pile 3, with each line representing the
strains after a strand was cut. This demonstrates the increasing compressive force on the pile as
the stress in each strand was released. The strain profiles for all six pile ends after 75% and 100%
release are shown in figures 6.3 through 6.14. Here, 75% release refers to 15 strands being released
and 100% release refers to all strands being released. In these figures, the strain is shown from the
60
pile end to the mid span. The strains reported in figures 6.26.4, 6.76.8, and 6.116.12 for the
stressing ends are average readings of pairs of strain gages located at the top corners of the pile
specimen. For example, the plotted strain at 3 in. from the pile end is the average of the strains
in strain gages S101 and S102 (figure 5.2).
There are two commonlyused methods to measure the transfer length of a strand : (1) the
95% Average Maximum Strain (AMS) method (Russell and Burns 1996) which uses the reported
strains along the transfer zone of a prestressed member to measure the transfer length, and (2)
the drawin or endslip method. The AMS was used in this study. The idealized theoretical
strain profile as explained by Mahmoud and Rizkalla (1996) would show a linear increase in strain
in the transfer zone, followed by a uniform strain plateau. However, for the pile end 4N, the data
shows a linear increase in strain in the transfer zone, but a uniform strain plateau was difficult to
define. Therefore, for this pile end, the transfer length was estimated by a visual analysis.
Figure 6.1: Strain gage layout at prestressing end
For all other pile ends, 95% AMS method was used to determine the transfer length of CFCC.
The procedure as explained by Russell and Burns (1996) is as follows :
1. Strains after the prestress release are recorded and are used to determine the strain profile
within the transfer zone.
2. Data may be smoothed if required, by taking the strain at any point b, as the average of
the strains at three adjacent points centered at b.
61
3. The strain plateau region, or the distance over which strain is at a nearly constant maximum,
is estimated visually. The average strain within the plateau is calculated. A line corresponding
to 95% of this average strain is superimposed on the strain profile.
4. The intersection of the 95% AMS and the strain profile defines the transfer length
The determined transfer lengths from the AMS method for the 75% and 100% stress release mea-
surements were averaged. These average transfer lengths for each pile end are given in table 6.1.
Figure 6.2: Strain profile for pile 3 at release
Figure 6.3: Strain profile for pile end 3N at 75% stress release
62
Figure 6.5: Strain profile for pile end 3S at 75% stress release
63
64
65
Table 6.1: Transfer length for specimen pile ends
Pile End Transfer Length (in.)

3N 29.0
3S 21.5
4N 25.5
4S 22.0
5N 28.0
5S 24.5
Average Transfer Length 25.0
66
6.3 Development Length Test Results
Two development length tests on one 40ft pile specimen were conducted. The test results
are presented in this section, including load versus deflection plots, as well as sketches of cracking
patterns that occured.
6.3.1 Test 1
The pile specimen was prepared for testing as explained in the chapter 4. For the first test,
the embedment length of 6 feet, the simplysupported span length was 22 feet, and the cantilever
length was 17 feet. The plot of applied load versus the midspan deflection is shown in figure 6.15.
The first flexural crack was observed at a load of 175 kips and extended up to 2 feet from the load
Figure 6.15: Load vs Deflection for test 1
point to the free end of the pile. The flexural cracks had propagated to 4 in. from the top fiber.
The load was applied until failure occurred, which was at 205 kips. The final crack pattern on
both the faces is shown in figures 6.16 and 6.17. The maximum top fiber strain in the vicinity of
the load point at failure was 0.0012. The applied load versus the average strain in the four gages,
67
Figure 6.16: Failure crack pattern on East face for test 1
Figure 6.17: Failure crack pattern on West face for test 1
around the load point (figure 5.7) is shown in figure 6.18. During loading, one of the strain gages
next to the load point location gave erroneous data at 40 kips, but after 43 kips, both the strain
gages gave similar readings.
68
Figure 6.18: Load vs Strain for test 1
There was no observable strand end slip on any of the four instrumented CFCC strands through-
out the test.
6.3.2 Test 2
The pile specimen from Test 1 was used again for Test 2. The structural integrity of the
cantilever remained undisturbed throughout the test 1, and this cantilever length was used to
perform test 2. For this second test, the embedment length was 10 feet, the simply supported span
length was 27 feet, and the cantilever length was 9 feet. The loading procedure was similar to test 1.
The plot of applied load versus deflection is shown in figure 6.19. The first flexural crack occurred
at a load of 101 kips, on the bottom of the pile under the load application point. The cracks
propagated up to 3 in. from the top fiber and extended up to 3 feet from the load point towards
the free end of the pile. The test resulted in a flexural failure, at a load of 120 kips resulting and a
deflection of 2.8 in. The strain gage and deflection gage layouts were test 1. The maximum strain
in the top fiber in the vicinity of the load point at failure was 0.00138. Local concrete crushing
69
Figure 6.19: Load vs Deflection for test 2
occurred on the top of the pile near the load point at failure (figure 6.20). There was no observable
strand slip in any of the four instrumented CFCC strands throughout the test.
Figure 6.20: Concrete crushing at top
70
Figure 6.21: Failure crack pattern on East face for test 2
Figure 6.22: Failure crack pattern on West face for test 2
6.4 Flexural Strength Test Results
Three 4in. x 8in. concrete cylinders were tested on the day of the flexural strength test and
had an average compressive strength of 9500 psi.
The applied load versus deflection is plotted in figure 6.23. The plotted displacements are averages
of gages D3 and D4 at midspan. The failure of the pile occured under one of the load transfer
points on the spreader beam as seen in the figure 6.26. Failure occurred at a load of 113 kips and a
midspan deflection of 9.63 in. (figure 6.23). This does not include the effects due to the self weight
of the pile or the spreader beam weight. The maximum concrete strain recorded was 1300 micro
strains, from strain gages S3 and S4 at midspan. There was no strand end slip observed in any
of the four instrumented strands throughout the test. A sketch of the crack pattern is shown in
figures 6.24 and 6.25. The cracks were uniformly distributed in the constant moment region and
extended up to 5 feet from the load points toward the free ends of the pile. At the maximum load,
the flexural cracks propagated to about 3 in. from the top fiber.
71
Figure 6.23: Load vs Deflection for flexure test
Figure 6.24: Failure crack pattern on East face for flexural test
Figure 6.25: Failure crack pattern on West face for flexural test
As previously stated, the pile specimen failed at an applied load of 113 kips, which equates
to a calculated moment of 753 kipin. This generates a total calculated test moment of 875 kip
72
Figure 6.26: Failure under one of the load points
ft, including an intial calculated moment of 122 kipft due to the self weight of the pile and the
spreader beam weight of approximately 3000 lbs. The theoretical pile capacity was calculated to
be 721 kipft. The testtotheoretical moment ratio was 1.21 (table 6.2).
Table 6.2: Theoretical vs test moment capacity
Moment Capacity (kipft)

Theoretical 721
Test 875
Ratio (Actual/Theoretical) 1.21
The results obtained from the transfer length, development length and flexural tests are dis-
cussed in chapter 7.
73
CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION
7.1 Introduction
The results obtained from the experimental program were reported in chapter 6. In this chapter,
the findings will be discussed. Also, the challenges associated with precasting CFCCprestressed
piles will be described, as well as the differences between using CFCC and steel prestressing.
7.2 Transfer Length of CFCC
The strain gage data taken during prestress release was analyzed using the 95% AMS method
for five pile ends out of six. The end 4N, did not show a distinct strain plateau and hence the
strain profile was evaluated visually for the transfer length. The strain profiles for all six transfer
length locations are presented in figures 6.3 through 6.14, and the values of the transfer lengths are
shown in table 6.1.
The transfer length values are consistently lower than equation (7.1) recommended by ACI
4404R04.
fpi db
Lt = (7.1)
t fci0 0.67
The factor t was determined by Grace (2000) to be 11.2; this results in a transfer length of 33
in. The observed transfer length was 25 in., which is 24% lower than the predicted value from the
equation (7.1). Mahmoud et al. (1999) proposed the same equation and suggested a value of 25.3
for t to predict the transfer length of a CFRP tendon. This results in a predicted transfer length
of 15 in. which is 40% lower than observed transfer length.
From table 6.1, the transfer lengths at the prestressing ends denoted by N, are higher than
the transfer lengths at the nonstressing ends, denoted by S. As explained by Pozolo (2010), this
might be influenced by factors such as concrete casting location, cutting location, and the use of
multiple batches of concrete. However, the average nonstressingtostressing end ratios of transfer
lengths ranged from 0.74 for pile 3 to 0.86 for piles 4 and 5. This shows that the casting location
had minimal to no effect on the transfer length.
74
Furthermore, the transfer length measured in this study is 16.7% and 30.6% less than the ACI
and AASHTO provisions of 50db (30 in.) and 60db (36 in.), respectively. In the development
equation given by ACI 318-08, the transfer length of a prestressing strand is given by,
fse db
Lt = (7.2)
3000
This results in a predicted transfer length value of 39 in., using an effective prestress fs e of 199.224
ksi after all prestress losses, as calculated per PCIs design handbook. Note that the equation does
not account for the concrete compressive strength at the time of release. The measured transfer
length was 35.9% less than that predicted by equation (7.2).
7.3 Development Length Tests

A crack is termed as flexural if it originates as a vertical crack that propagates upwards from
the bottom surface. Test 1 and 2 failed in flexure. The shortest embedment length was 72 inches.
This indicates that the strand had developed the maximum tensile strength under 72 inches, as
development length is the shortest embedment length that develops the strands flexural capacity
without any bond slip. Table 7.1 provides development length predictions per equations from ACI
31808, AASHTO, Mahmoud and Rizkalla (1996), and Lu et al. (2000). The equation by Lu et al.
for predicting development length is as follows:
1 3
Ld = fpe db + (fpu fpe )db (7.3)
3 4
This results in a development length of 103 in. which is 43.1% higher than the shortest embedment
length tested in this study.
Table 7.1: Development length predictions
Predicted Length (in.)

Lu et al. (2000) 103
Mahmoud and Rizkalla (1996) 42
ACI 318-08 52
AASHTO 86
The development length according to AASHTO (86 in.) is 19.4% higher than the shortest em-
bedment length tested. The low value of the development length might be due to the characteristic
properties of CFCC and also might be a result of using highstrength, self consolidating concrete.
For an accurate measurement of the development length, more strength testing is needed.
75
Table 7.2: Moment capacity comparison
Moment Capacity (kipft) Abalo et al. (2010) CFCC reinforced pile specimen
Theoretical 625 720.68
Actual 759 875
Ratio (Actual/Theoretical) 1.21 1.21
7.4 Flexural Strength Tests
Table 6.2 shows that the flexural strength of the concrete pile prestressed with CFCC is 21%
higher than the theoretical predicted strength. Furthermore, the deflection at failure was 9.26
in., which indicates very high ductility. In research conducted by Abalo et al. (2010), tests were
performed on 24 in.diameter circular concrete pile prestressed with 20 0.5in.diameter strands
which were wrapped with a CFRP mesh in lieu of spiral ties. The performance of this specimen
was compared to a 24in. square prestressed concrete pile, which was used as a control pile. The
control pile was prestressed with 16 0.6in.diameter steel strands. The results of the tests on the
control pile can be compared to the 24in. square pile tested in the current study. Although the
pile in the current study contained 20 0.6in.diameter CFCC strands, the results are comparable
because the corner four strands in this study were stressed only up to 5 kips. Table 7.2 compares
the flexure test results on the control pile from Abalo et al. (2010) to the results on the CFCC
pile tested in this study. The comparison suggests that the pile capacity did not reduce by using
CFCC prestressing in place of steel. There was no strand end slip throughout the tests, which
demonstrates that the CFCC has a good bond with concrete.
7.5 Learnings from Previous Prestressing at GATE

7.5.1 Introduction
In Summer 2012, plan were made to precast five concrete piles prestressed with 20 0.5in.
diameter CFCC strands. The casting setup and layout were similar to that described in chapter 4.
The only difference between the piles from Summer 2012 and the piles from Summer 2013 on
which the results in this report were based is that 0.5in.diameter strands were used instead of
0.6in.diameter strands. After the CFCC strands, spirals, and the couplers were installed in the
precasting bed, the stressing operations began. Initially, all strands were partially stressed in the
sequence shown in figure 7.1. Thereafter, full stressing to 29 kips began. While the third strand
76
was about to be stressed, the CFCC strand that was stressed first slipped from the coupling device.
All prestressing operations were stopped.
Figure 7.1: Stress pattern
The CFCC coupling device from which the strand had slipped was locally investigated by the
researchers, CFCC manufacturer, and precasting personnel at Gate, and possible reasons for the
slippage were speculated as follows:
1. Hoyer Effect
During the prestressing operation, the strand might have reduced in diameter, thus reducing
the frictional forces between the wrapping mechanism and the coupler sleeve.
2. Length of the wedges

The length of the wedges gripping the CFCC strand after the seating was achieved might not
have been adequate.
3. Twisting of the CFCC strands

It was observed that the strand had twisted during the stressing operation. This might have
resulted in loss of contact between the wrapping material and the CFCC strand.
The CFCC manufacturer, Tokyo Rope, then performed a thorough investigation of the failed coupler
as well as other couplers that had been installed. They concluded that the molybdenum lube spray
that was used was not able to seat the wedges completely due to lack of lubrication and hence
the seated length of the wedges was inadequate to generate the frictional forces required to grip
the CFCC strand. To remedy this at the next precasting effort, in Summer 2013, Tokyo Rope
provided their own special molybdenum spray. Also, Tokyo Rope noted that the seating of the
77
wedges was not consistent from coupler to coupler. To remedy this, Tokyo Rope developed the
coupler installation procedure described in chapter 4. The main differences between the previous
installation procedure (which was used for prestressing 0.5in.diameter strands in Summer 2012)
and the new technique used in Summer 2013 are given below:
1. The Mesh Sheet Wrapping

The earlier method to wrap the mesh sheet was to tape two separate mesh sheets on to the
(a) Old Technique
(b) New Technique
Figure 7.2: Mesh sheet installation technique
CFCC strand (figure 7.2). This may not provide complete wrapping on the CFCC strand. The
new technique involved wrapping the CFCC strand uniformly with a continous mesh sheet.
This method provides a better and more uniform grip on the CFCC strand (figure 7.2).
2. Wedge Installation
In the new twchnique, the wedges were marked at 55 mm from the larger end of the wedges.
A pnuematic jack was used to install the wedges into the sleeve. The previous method was
to hammer the wedges into the sleeve. The new method provided a uniform and consistent
installation of the wedges (figure 7.3).
78
(a) Old Technique
(b) New Technique
Figure 7.3: Wedge installation method
The new techniques used to install the couplers were successful in prestressing the strands and are
now a standard used by Tokyo Rope.
79
CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Conclusions
Five 24in. square prestressed concrete piles were cast using 20 0.6in.diameter CFCC pre-
stressing strands, manufactured by Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Company. Two 100ft and three
40ft pile specimens were produced at Gates precasting yard in Jacksonville, Florida. Transfer
length tests were performed at Gate on three 40ft piles. Two of the 40ft piles were tested for
development length and flexural capacity at the FDOT Marcus H. Ansley Structures Research
Center in Tallahassee, Florida. The third 40ft pile is stored at the laboratory for future studies,
if needed. On a future date, the two 100ft piles will be driven on a bridge construction site, to
monitor the static resistance of the piles and pile behavior while driving.
The conclusions made herein are based on the tests performed at Gate and the Marcus H. Ansley
Structures Reserach Center.
8.1.1 Transfer Length of CFCC
An analysis of the two transfer length tests, particularly of the data obtained from the electrical
resistance strain gages, suggests that the CFCC strands have a 25in. transfer length, which is
16.7% and 30.6% less than that predicted by ACI and AASHTO, respectively. The observed transfer
length is 24% lower than the transfer length calculated from ACI 440.4R04 and using the alpha
factor by Grace (2000). Testing of more pile specimens could be performed to determine an alpha
factor for CFCC strand transfer length predictions. Nonetheless, the observed transfer length is
conservative, in that it is less than the predicted values.
The strain profile for each beam end shows that the transfer lengths at the stressing ends were
marginally higher than the transfer lengths observed at the nonstressing ends. The ratio of these
transfer lengths, however, suggest that the transfer length is not affected by the casting location of
the specimen.
80
8.1.2 Development Length of CFCC
The Test 1 pile had an embedment length of 72 in. Because the pile failed in flexure, rather
than by failure of the strandtoconcrete bond, the development length could not be determined
in this study. However, it can be concluded that the development length of the CFCC is less than
72 in. and therefore also less than the AASHTO prediction of 86 in.
8.1.3 Flexural Strength of CFCCPrestressed Pile
The flexural strength of the CFCCprestressed concrete pile was 21% higher than theoretical.
The flexural strength test results suggest that the flexural performance of piles with CFCC strands
is comparable to the flexural performance of piles with steel strands. The cracking pattern in all
three tests (the two development length tests and the flexural test) was as anticipated for a flexural
failure. In all the tests, there was no end slip in any of the strands which indicates a good bond
characteristic of the CFCC with concrete. In addition, the pile had deflected over 9 in. at failure,
which indicates good ductility.
8.1.4 Specimen Production
There are unique challenges associated with using CFCC strands in a prestressed concrete pile.
The precaster has to adapt to a new technique of stressing the strand with respect to:
1. Coupler Installation
2. Proper handling of the CFCC to prevent damage
3. Concrete Compaction, preferably without a vibrator to prevent damage to strand
4. The stressing method of CFCC strands, with regards to the slowerthannormal stressing
rate recommended by Tokyo Rope
81
5. Use of different header material (wood instead of steel) to prevent damage to CFCC strands
while installing them in the precasting bed
8.1.5 Suggestions for Future Research
This study investigated CFCC strands and their bond characteristics (transfer length and de-
velopment length) and the effect of using CFCC on the flexural capacity of the pile. Suggestions
for future research are as follows:
1. More testing could be performed to better estimate the value of alpha factor in the ACI 440
4R04 equation, by varying parameters such as the diameter of the CFCC, the prestressing
force, and the concrete strength.
2. More tests should be performed to evaluate the development length of CFCC in prestressed
concrete piles. The conclusions reported herein are based on only two tests, for which the
pile failed in flexure rather than the CFCC failing in bond.
3. Tests should be performed to asses the performance of CFCC in prestressed concrete piles
during driving operations.
4. Research should be conducted to further improve the anchorage system for the CFCC strands,
with one goal being to make installation easier and faster for the precaster.
5. Driving the piles in a splash zone and performing longterm monitoring for degradation would
confirm the suitability of using CFCC in place of steel in prestressed concrete piles.
82
APPENDIX A
MOMENT CAPACITY CALCULATION
83
APPENDIX B
PRESTRESS LOSS CALCULATION
84
85
86
APPENDIX C
CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
Note: This compression strength test data was provided by Gate before the piles were cast, to
help in deciding to use the SCC mix design. This data is NOT on the specific batches used in the
casting of the piles for this research.
87
88
89
90
91
92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO, (2010), Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth Edition, American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1635 pp.
ACI Committee 440, State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement for Con-
crete Structures, American concrete institute, Farmington hills, MI, 1996, 153 pp.
ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and
Commentary (ACI 318 R-08), American concrete institute, Farmington hills, MI, 2008.
Abalo, V., Potter, W., and Fallaha, S. (2010). Testing precast pile with carbon fiber reinforced
polymer mesh. 13.
Andrawes, B., Shin, M., and Pozolo, A. (2009). Transfer and development length of prestressing
tendons in full-scale AASHTO prestressed conrete girders using self-consolidating concrete.
FHWA-ICT-09-038.
Balazs, G. L. (1993). Transfer lengths of prestressing strands as a function of draw in and initial
prestress. PCI, 38.
Cable Technologies North America, Inc., CFCC Handling Manual for Prestressed concrete Pile,
June 2012, 20 pp.
Cousins, T., Johnston, D. W., and Zia, P. (1990a). Development length of epoxy-coated prestress-
ing strand. ACI Materials, 87.
Cousins, T., Johnston, D. W., and Zia, P. (1990b). Transfer and development length of epoxy-
coated and uncoated prestressing strand. PCI, 35.
Destrebecq, J.-F., Grediac, M., and Sierra-Ruiz, V. (2006). The transfer length in reinforced
concrete structures strengthened with composite plates: Experimental study and modelling.
Composite Science and Technology.
Dolan, C. (1990). Development in non-metallic prestressing tendons. PCI, 35.
Domenico, N. G. (1995). Bond properties of cfcc prestressing strands in pretensioned concrete

beams. M.S. thesis, University of Manitoba, University of Manitoba.
Grace, N. (2000). Transfer length of CFRP/CFCC strands for double-t girders. PCI, 45, 110126.
Grace, N. (2003). First CFRP bridge in the USA. Construction and Technology, Issue Number
97.
93
Grace, N. (2007). 5-years monitoring of first CFRP prestressed concrete three-span highway bridge
in USA. 16.
Grace, N., Abdel-Sayed, G., Navarre, F. C., Bonus, R. B. N. W., and Collavino, L. (2003). Full
scale test of prestressed double-tee beams. Concrete International.
Grace, N., Enomoto, T., Abdel-Mohti, A., Tokal, Y., and Puravankara, S. (2008). Flexural
behavior of precast concrete box beams post-tensioned with unbonded, carbon-fiber composite
cables. PCI Journal.
Grace, N., Enomoto, T., Baah, P., and Bebaway, M. (2012). Flexural behavior of CFRP precast
prestressed concrete bulb t-beams. ASCE.
Grace, N., Jensen, E., and Noamesi, D. K. (2011). Flexural performance of carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer prestressed concrete side-by-side box beam bridge. ASCE.
Grace, N. and Singh, S. B. (2003). Design approach for carbon fiber-reinforced polymer prestressed
concrete bridge beams. ACI.
Gross, S. P. and Burns, N. H. (1995). Transfer and development length of 15.2 mm (0.6 in.)
diameter prestressing strand in high performance concrete: Results of the hoblitzell-buckner
beam tests. Report No. 580-2, Center for Transportation Research.
Hanson, N. and Kaar, P. (1959). Flexural bond tests of pretensioned prestressed beams. American
Concrete Institute, 30.
Haq, M. (2005). Effect of self consolidating concrete (scc) mix proportioning on transfer and de-
velopment length of prestressing strands. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, Michigan
State University.
Herrera, R., Jones, L., and Lai, P. (2008). Driven concrete pile foundation monitoring with
Embedded Data Collector system. 8.
Issa, M., Sen, R., and Amer, A. (1993). Comparative study of transfer length in fiber and steel
pretensioned concrete members. PCI, 38.
Iyer, S. and Khubchandani, A. (1992). Evaluation of graphite composite cables for prestressing
concrete. First International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
Structures, CSCE, Sherbrooke,Quebec, Canada.
Kanakubo, T. and Suzuki, M. (1993). Application of cfrp strand to prestensioned prestressed

concrete bridge. Modern Prestressing Techniques and Their Applications, 2.
Logan, D. R. (1997). Acceptance criteria for bond quality of strand for pretensioned prestressed
concrete application. PCI, 42.
94
Lu, Z., Boothby, T. E., Bakis, C. E., and Nanni, A. (2000). Transfer and development length of
FRP prestressing tendons. PCI, 45.
Mahmoud, Z. I. and Rizkalla, S. H. (1996). Bond properties of CFRP prestressing reinforcement.

20.
Mahmoud, Z. I., Rizkalla, S. H., and Zaghloul, E.-E. R. (1999). Transfer and development lengths
of Carbon Fiber Reinforced polymers prestressing reinforcement. ACI.
Nanni, A., Utsunomiya, T., Yonekura, H., and Tanigaki, M. (1992). Transmission of prestressing
force to concrete by bond fibre reinforced plastic tendons. ACI, 89.
Persson, B. (2001). A comparison between mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete and

the corresponding properties of normal concrete. Cement & Concrete Research, 193198.
Pozolo, A. (2010). Transfer and development length of steel strands in full scale prestressed self-
consolidating concrete bridge girders. M.S. thesis, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
PCI, (2010), Design Handbook, Seventh Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
Ill., 828 pp.
Rohleder, J., Tang, B., Doe, T. A., Grace, N., and Burgess, C. J. (2005). CFRP strand application
on Penobscot Narrows cable stayed bridge. 15.
Russell, B. and Burns, N. (1996). Measured transfer lengths of 0.5 and 0.6 in. strands in preten-
sioned concrete. PCI, 41, 4465.
Taerwe, L., Lambotte, H., and Miesseler, H. (1992). Transfer length tests on concrete beams
prestressed with Glass Fiber Tendons. PCI, 37.
Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Technical Data on CFCC, JAPAN, October 1993, 100 pp.
95
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Kunal Joshi was born in Pune, India in 1986. He went to Hindustan Antibiotics School, and
graduated from the University Of Pune with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering.
Kunal worked at Aker Solutions pvt. Ltd as an Engineer I from 2008 to 2010 before coming to the
United States in 2011 to pursue higher education. His Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering
focused on Structural Engineering with a special interest in high performance materials. He was
a teaching assistant at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, and he also worked at the Florida
Department of Transportation Marcus H. Ansley Structures Research Center as a Lab Assistant.
Kunal likes travelling and hopes to practice Civil Engineering around the world.
96

Tokyo Rope - CFCC in Prestressed Concrete Piles - Thesis - November 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tokyo Rope - CFCC in Prestressed Concrete Piles - Thesis - November 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Florida State University

Investigation of Carbon Fiber Composite Cables

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

INVESTIGATION OF CARBON FIBER COMPOSITE CABLES (CFCC) IN PRESTRESSED

A Thesis submitted to the

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

3 MATERIALS & INSTRUMENTATION 23

4 TEST SPECIMEN PRODUCTION 30

6 EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULTS 60

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 80

B Prestress Loss Calculation 84

C Concrete Mix Design 87

4.1 Elongation measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.1 Test matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.1 Transfer length for specimen pile ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

6.2 Theoretical vs test moment capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

7.1 Development length predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7.2 Moment capacity comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

1.1 Splash zone corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 FRP stress-strain relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 CFCC standard specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 Applications of CFCC in various fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4 Load and elongation diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.5 Variation of strand stress within the development length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.6 Transfer length test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.7 Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.8 Crack pattern observed by Zaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.10 Carbon fiber reinforced double-T beam cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.11 Deflections observed by Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.12 Pretensioning using steel couplers by Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.13 Load setup for decked bulb-T beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.14 Behaviour of CFCC in comparison with steel strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.15 HEM coupling method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.16 Flexure test used to evaluate development length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.17 Pile sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.1 A typical stressing bed schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2 Open grip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.3 Tokyo Rope coupling device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.4 Construction of buffer material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.5 Typical volume percentage of constituents in SCC and traditional concrete . . . . . . 27

3.6 Strain gage schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 Setup for coupling demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2 Section view of the pile specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.3 Pile elevation view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.4 Steel header replaced with wooden header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.5 Assembly to lay strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.6 Stressing bed schematic at Gate Precast Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.7 View from both ends for CFCC stagger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.8 Plan view from both ends for Coupler stagger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.9 Wrapping the buffer material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.10 Spraying molylube on the sleeves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.11 Installing sleeve and the braided grip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.12 Wedge setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.13 Wedge installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.14 Steel strand installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.15 CFCC coupled with steel strand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.16 Coupler view after stagger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.17 Staggered couplers after inital pretensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.18 Stressing sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.19 Stressing profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.20 Installation of stirrups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.21 EDC clamped with a rubber material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.22 Casting using SCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48